Document text
gnu-J 924
' C °'92u1i*» 7
/-I
/
Hon. Richard H. Nixon
c/o Hr. Charles K. Ecwhorter
Legislative Assistant
Office of the Vice President
Washington 25, D. G.
Dear Vice President Nixon:Ahbdt 22, 1960 92 .
b7"
'92$92CfGtr§92ALL IUT?1H£TIcN CUNTAINED
PHZREIA is UNCLASETFIEDDATE $311» ls 92§ .=;§qg,3;;>@Pg_,,¢.
Re: Connolly Amendment - Loyalty Oath - SUPREME cousr
1'... ...-.....__.-I 4... -.-. 1-4»;-...._ -0 r...-._ L. 1nLn 1' ..-. .,92........1.-.-.'| ll La..- 1-..--.c.u J.G5B&92ul. uu uq .|-novel vs. uuulu v, +7uv, 4.. mu 92:ll|5.l.J.I.lU92-I uu navel ucwu
fooled by Senator Johnson. I should have been cognizant of his voting
record before making such a rash statement with regard to him. I have
since learned his voting record is one point below Senator Kennedy's,
which is very low. Also that he used his position as leader of the
South to blackmail his way onto the ticket for Vice President See
signed AP article, publisher John S. Knight, of Knight Newspapers.
Knight's statement is in regard to Johnson and the Vice Presidency,, , ._, r. 1 J /
CONNALLY " . REoERVATION
The material you enclosed was helpful and interesting. However;'I am
not a politician and will not attempt to answer as such. I am concerned
with the lack of leadership in our country. Leadership which would
conserve and protect our country, not give it away inchmeal. I know you
and I do not agree concerning the Connolly Amendment, but surely you know
that this sneak abandonment of the Connolly Reservation was instigated,
in my opinion, by one or more persons in the State Department. "This whole
back-door abandonment of the CONNALLI RESERVATION has been rushed through
the Senate without debate and even without printed records for the Senators
themselves." Guardians or Our American Heritage, July 1960, Vol. Ix,
No. 69!. The vote on the protocol, the executive N of the Annex V, on
compulsory settlement of disputes with regard to "The Law of the Sea" is
still to be brought before the Senators. IOU SHOULD BE TAKING THE LEAD
to infonm the Senate the abandcnent of the Connolly Reservation will
mean the World Court could tell us in effect, to vacate our Naval Base I:_ n-.92...-.- as. __....|.: _..,.:_.., a1..._ '|"r_.!4.__1 r_92s-...|...- .....|. -0 D ____ .., -1-L 4.-...1A A...92-l.l-JJ1 92.|U.lJG§ L U DUI-l-J. UL HUI BUG UILLUULI. DI-PG-UU§ UUJJ UL l'cl-lhllll, LU 92,vu.n.u LLU92¢.l.92l.¬I
to whom the mineral deposits along our coast belong; it could control any»
thing connected with the seas, including the territorial seas and contig-
uous zones. There cannot be a World Court in the true sense, until there
uacmmnmddmmmawn/T n.~Mq i,;@ / ' »."mz/ r<r~"w:uf or
OATH ---~-~-- o. M» e. - LOYALTY __ h-.
It seems to me the need f th Lo alt Oath ha b e definitely
920 e y y s eon v ry
I /--I I
J 1 ' ', ' ..-dell I '-L." *":"'..= -I ~r":'./'./I '9
ENGLOSURH
I .-
I , -
Loyalty - hltd -Dath I "' J '
proven by the events which occured in San Francisco. The RIDTS against
the HCUA which were inspired and incited by communists, professors 00!,
an some students, AND IN WHICH MANY STUDENTS PARTICIPATED, were occurh
ances which many Americans said could never happen here, BUT THE! HAVE
HAPPENED. NO ONE CAN DENY IT. One of the participants was Evelyn
Einstein, granddaughter of the late Albert Einstein. She was arrested "
the Friday of the rioting, and charged with disturbing the peace, rioting,
and resisting arrest; she is a student at the University of California,
and her father, Hans A. Einstein, is a California engineering professor.
was he one of the PROFESSORS inciting the students to riot? Infonmation
regarding Einsteins, Les Angeles Times 5/16/60, Part I, p. 12!. Linus
Pauling is reported to have stepped out of the line of march to say to
a reporter that he was there to lend his support to abolishment of the
HCUA. It is believable since this sane Linus Pauling, Professor at
California Institute of Technology refused to tell the California Senate
Investigating Coittee on Education whether or not he was a Communist.
Louis Budenz, former Communist and editor of The Daily Worker, testified
under oath he was "officially advised" that Dr. Pauling "was a member of
the Communist Party under discipline." He is still teaching at Caltech
and says he believes Comuhists should be allowed to teach in ourschools. Infonmation on Linus Pauling from FACTS IN EDUCATION, Inc.,
Vol. VIII, No. 3, May-June, l96O, p. 7 . Now this OATH is a good and
necessary provision no need for me to repeat the OATH, as I am sure you
know it! and it's only fault is the comuniets FEAR it because they can
be convicted of perjggy for making false statements, knowingly, while
under oath. As for the cry the Oath is an invasion of intellectual free-
dom, that is ridiculous. That is part of the oommunist's TACTICS - tell
people their freedom is being invaded and the so called "intellectuals"
immediately take up the hue and cry. ALL OF THE STUDENTS ARE NOT ASKED
TO TAKE THE LOYALTY OATH, ONLY THOSE EHO DESIRE TO AVAIL TEIEBELVES OF A
BPECIAL PRIVILEGE PAID FOR BI THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS. It seems to me it
should be_a privilege to_swgar_allegiance,tqLthe_United States of_Amerioa
and state one does not believe in or support gpy method for the overthrow
of the Government of the United States. Are you going to turn our colleges
over to the communists 1 prominent irstitutions, including Harvard, Yale,
Princeton, the University of Chicago, Amherst College, the University of
California, etc., have refused to participate in the student aid program
because of the Oath!. WHY? Participants are not asked to swear anything
except allegiance to the U. S.; no one's belief is questioned, unless one
is a member of an organization "which seeks to overthrow the government
of the United States by illegal means." Perhaps the members of the House
of Representatives will be more stalwart and keep the Amendments and Oaths
that help protect our country. J __.n ¢;5dQf%',,c:;-
SUPREME COURT its *
}__
' other important consideration would be censoring the Supreme Court.
In my opinion, beginning with, and since Hoosevelts time most decisions
by the judges have been made in favor of communists or socializing our
f
r
, ......_.».-..-..---- -----"J ,,~1'-/I " fir ¢f___l;__£_/ _ 5/......_.-,-Q --I.-...---5----'
I
I
i
A'-I.9292
192yF"|
,, .
A~ 1
-..§ 1 . -
SUPREME gown - Contd.
country. when our Supreme Court approves teaching adultery, our country
is not a "worn out and limping horse", from your "Economic Growth Through
Freedom"! but a country being led and pushed along an ever more rapidly
descending path to immorality, socialism, and oblivion. The path chosen
for us by the Communists. This Supreme Court decision says it is proper
and legal to teach adultery, the breaking of the marriage vows, because "It
is an idea" and comes under the head of "Free Speech". '1'he Court had pre-
viously ruled that it is legal to teach or advocate the overthrow of our
Government because that also is just an "idea" and comes under the head oi
"Free Speech". Information frcm Guardians of Our American Heritage,
January 1960, Vol. II, No. 63!. Frank Wilkinson, cited for contempt of
Congress, found guilty oi contempt and sentenced to l.2 months imprison-
ment has appealed the conviction and the appeal is presently pending before
the Supreme Court of the United States. Read Communist Target - Youth,
report by J. Edgar Hoover, published by the HCUA!. If the Nine Justices
follow their previous pattern they will hold him not guilty. when Earl
Warren, the Chief Justice left Sacramento, he sealed all records from his
office and ordered them to remain sealed for ten years after September, 1953
Such was the fear engendered by the man during his decade in the office as
Governor of California, no one has dared countermand that order or to
question its legality. Human Events, Vol. XV, No. 1, January 6, 1958!. was
there information as terrible and condemning to hide as that which the State
Department of the United States has lent eiegl e_ii;qr_t to conceal, from the
public concerning Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration, and even Truman's?
There are so many more subjects, but it would take a volume to list them
all. However, be suspicious oi every bill and study it ca:-eiull;7, and do
NOT vote for party but for countg. If and when you have any time, read
Skousen's THE NAKED OOMMUNIST; Jordan's FROM MAJOR JORDAN'S DIARIES;
1'icCarthy's AMERICA'S RETREAT FRC14 VICTORY; Barron's INSIDE THE STATE
DEPA.R'I'MEI92IT; Gordon's NINE MEN AGAll923S'1 AI-ERICA, as a starter.!
Sincerely,
r>»></
cc Hon. Barry Goldwater
Hon. Homer E. Capehart
Hon. August E. Johansen
Hon. E. W. Hiestand
Chief Justice, Earl Warren, copy of part re Supreme Court
Hon. Russell Long
Hon. Everett Dirksen
Mr. Dan Smoot
Hon. Strum Thurmond
l- 7
a .,@ -
<
- 4:_ 4 » 1
. , u. i
'22,. :3
-~,1
i
...._._...U
-----1,
_ '1
I~92
H.-ff
4'
95i
s 1.
. J ' in
i ._ is 5 t »~e
'-"'-
-'92
;»' *
Y _ __ _ '7 -- _ ._. _ , .
~ , _ _ - n.._._... -_.
P>1%2'/PL/ #9/<*<3n C . 1
- s __ I} *E92"f1br~I§Qi{TA__Ii*'E°' '
:3 uneuwséé-1&9 2D§.TE
I 92
- I have received your letter of August 29,1960, with enclosure, and I want to take this opportunity __ lq,
to thank you for your kind remarks concerning this Bureau. 1-
Enclosed is some material on the subject
of communism which may be oi interest to you. _ 7 _ -:" _
+-4 zSincerely yours, O
MAILED _ ' O
, " Ia Edgar} Booger _-2
SEP - G 1950 '
COMM~F'B|
Enclosures 8!
Communist Illusion and Democratic Reality
March 1, 1960 LEB Intro and 17th Convention CP, USAExpose of Soviet Espionage s. ' _ _ I;-1!
1' . Buuliesn containno derogetory'.in£ormatioii regarding
-'
_ '- 1! .
.t
' ,.
...__,__,{
h 4
- ;. - ;. j
7 '- J ,-'4.-.1_ - ".' I?"4rr-92"-I.-=* P-<-
.§:"?5.. . ,__
L. ....4 v--:1- _=_. _ _ .-_-., ,..' ,72::"1-.»-'-1--.i_.,...-vi-,_,._
Elia1:
,- J ' "U 92
in December, 1958. It is allegedly an anticommunist organization
with branches over various parts of the country. Welch has been
quite critical of President Eisenhower and his administration.
SAC letter 60-5 calls this organization to the attention of the field.
and instructs them to forward any information regarding the society's
activities to the Bureau.
m
-2-
J.-E, !!' 92.31*; I1 -»...; '1
r-7'9-I-¢D£.Ia: '4
.733-
-3¥?1'."
._, ,
,§",-.
in-.5
__._.___.
¢
J
-4- *
_c ~_.,_
----J5.
-l_~H4>.. ' ... ._ f -;.'4$ .~ -|. '. ._ . __ .
. '/4'
.8.
1!
,2? - ' T"
is
J
I 1 'Q J-.-
~ .1 D41 92' -_.- - ..-: 1-= -
j .. -
' _.
I.
. ' ~ »d!a-an --Q "
I Q _ _92 a- ,
! _ - i92.q_".» F--:11 H ~-.__
..-"1 ~ _. ' -
n n J.
92
92I
O ,r-.4 41. :92-»-."-- -1-I-?;-= .é- "=--- .--I; -I-.-_..-1-f_._4-=_-, _
UDIZP.I_
gorr RECTIR REDn. _
.92-"W >1
-m-m_,_.........
1.1- 1-u.__,_.__....
m'§m____
ll:-run ......._,.'.
-Sir C-2"n92a .___._
r....:_-_- . ._?
G1:*i..._'-_-'-- ,
RP. Ifrhn ........---
. =e:=d'm ....... .- -
ll1t,Pf.l.lt|:92lI......
Qrnl
Hr !92i.;n-In
GdV' -V
X;
»,:JT2?{-
87 MAY 15194-6
"-1-., .
I
*'-'" -.12.!
CHICAGO DNLY
» 4/
, 92 92.TRIBUNE
A -9 04¢ ¢L@5l»~ @%=-1».
/
4*,-r.:; -- ' '1-gs .
.1,-_: ,'19," .-$4,, '5
I
92.-.
seed
gm
/""-
92___./
_
L 1 . i The Supreme Court will min-et
I/Gar lairt_."n ! "
3': -
I I _ f_ u TIIIK __..._.. _-p»
><< nan we 1 ,
sked to Act, it,In Kent Gasei A
i ngeiannucrunm
' Anelorttotn-ingabootthere-IQ to the United States of alert ,
t, convicted in I British court;
I oi violating the British olcial war
aee!'¢tla¢Ir,hile amember ofthe1 American Embassy sun in London,'
M was begun" in the Supreme Courtil
yesterday by Kent: mother. Mini
Annligentotthiscity. - 1t
S The eort was in the {armor a~
mo&t tor permission to tile a
petition for a writ of mandlnnl.
Don M. Harlan of Detroit, attorney
I for Mrs. Kent, said the writ. u
- granted, would call on President
Roosevelt to ascertain the causes '
for Kent's detention, and it he were l
wrongfully held,-to demand his re- 1
1 lease. H the demand met with un-
; reasonable delay, Harlan said. the '
President would be required to use
all acts short of acts of war to
effectuate the release. "Harlan said the petition quen-
= ned the right of the State lJe--
ent to waive immunity for
ent. He contended that "the Cah-
tntinn follows the ag, and that
nt was under the protection of
the Constitution while employed asi
I clerk in the American Embassy.
In order to he released to the
British. Harlan contended, Kent
would have had to waive immunity}
-in his own behalf with the consent
of the United States Government.
Harlan also contended that
Kent's imprisonment in Britain, in
thedight of the State Department's
recent public announcement of the}
ease, constituted a threat of double
; jeopardy for the same asserted of-
; tense. '
Mrs. Kent said she was in ire-I
quent direct communication with;92
Ti
92
l
him about elottl to smear his
[ character in this country. Ind
that he had replied that such ac-
tions demonstrated that United-x
States authorities tear the facts."
Mrs. Kent previously asserted,
the "State Department's statement!
of the case left unanswered "the
point on which the American peo- _
pie demand an investigation, i. e.
the existence or nonexistence of.secret prewar agreements made by;
the President without the advice
and consent of the Senate." Shestated her son was required to liga-
e "secret agreements betw in
sevelt and Prime Minister
hurcltill
' I jg, i tober 2 to open its new term.92 Iher son. She said she had written
1~TDEXED
J
I
»Ir. "|1,|,,,_n
1:,-_:__T.___
"'- Wnu
""'-
llr. .|h'____ '
In Cori __: ---- -v
II. M. '
U2. lea-Miunu
llr. 4,".
In Quin
"1" "¢au..._ '
lb! G.-t N
/43'; ~'
1 J
-1 : I
I
/f,
- ' W},/I.-w' rd
30.1. R __ _Rn!-.D
87 SEP 1944
Thie*_i§ a clippine from
page.%5"i. of the
Wasgtown
clippecfst the Seat of
I -1
_ -_q-
tn;
i-
s.
,.I I
*1
i1
I
_'1
-.-_---
3 1*
ti
i"I3
in
_r
En .. *1/>Q 0 3 1RECEW
- 1» I
1
QEL §.:{I3urc:m of Qlnesgaiiun I , . "7,"
eparhnmt oi usiite ;-
1206 Law e Finance Bldg.,_ Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 5 "
I/e _ rnvz roaz ii
e,~*"'r ea , November 18, 1932 pi pp _*
.
'¢¢1/H /L51/,
W
sol-~ h¢* °92 '
/W92s nj;;e+ 4101
, 92 i 7BU"Fn7ll7nrur-h¢7¢~;Y;~~1|7o'
Director - 5i4#1¢:;
nned States Bureau of Investigation Nov 1 ';;¢ 4 -3*
Washington, D. C. - Q _ ,, 5 _;,D Sn as 101933 __; __-_,.......,92_,, ~63.1 0 I 6 O - 92%O > . ,, c | e1 "'-V Q ,_With further reference to m tter dhteéictij """ "'
ober 51, 1952 in which I submitted suggestions for con-
sideration with a view to improvement of the work of the
Bureau, please consider, if possible, the following sug-
gestions along the same line. 92
The writer recently read anwppinion handed down 1
by the United States15u ems Court on November 7 1932 inthe case entitled JACK?égBARDI and LOULSE ROLEEYCEBLRDI,
Petitioners vs. the United States of America, in which it
was held, in substance, that the Victim in that case was t
not guilty with JACK GEBARDI of conspicary to violate the
White Slave Traffic Act, and it appeared that the opinion
somewhat differed from the opinion expressed in the case
of the United States vs. Holte, 236 U. S. 140, although
nssociate Supreme Court Justice Stone, in delivering the
opinion in the Gebardi case, distinguished between the two
cases.
Although this Agent did not make a brief of the
Opinion it is his recollection that in the GEBARDI case it
was held that the Victim cannot he held guilty of conspira-
cy to violate the White Slave Traffic Act where she willing-
ly accompanies the man from one state to another for imoral
purposes, and it appeared to be the opinion of the Court
that a female conspirator had to take an active and positive
part in planning and causing the interstate transportation
in order to be guilty of conspiracy to violate the act. The
mere accompanying of a man fro one state to another does not
apparently constitute a violation of the law unless the woman
takes an active part in causing the transportation, such as
planning the trip or furnishing or assisting in furnishing
the means of transportation.
1""
- e
1
_ .
qg-II
J
-?=','
-1
-
1
J.sm T4 -I-. -8| -E4-'92-U-5 1-.»-.»---an,-I-.-.K! -Lb 1.5 ll-I-.1. M1151. -Bl.-lt,5|5?.IlrU=1 £3
1
In 2 -
92;;.. i/ In view of the above opinion it is suggested that
Section 9 of the Manual of Instructions be amended and that
another paragraph be added to Paragraph 3 appearing on Page
5 of Section 9, to the effect that all possible evidence
should be secured to corroborate the statements of the Sub-
ject and Victim and where it appears that the woman is equal
ly guilty as the man, all evidence should be secured showing
that the woman was also the active and moving spirit inFD causing the interstate transportation for immoral purposes.
- At the bottom of Page 5, it is suggested that the
case of JACK GEBARDI and LOUISE ROLFE GEBARDI, Fetitioners v
the United States of America, be briefly cited.
. u at following the first
paragraph on Page 6 of Section 9 of the hanual of Instruc-
tions, that Sub-section E be added to the effect that all
possible evidence should be secured to show whether the Vic-
tim entered into a conspiracy with the man to violate the
nite Slave Traffic Act and also whether she furnished or as
sisted in furnishing the means of transportation and took an
active part in the violation of the3act-
Very truly yours,
I k> C,i pecial Agent
1S.
s ~ !J 11'1 A-1-m sncmn Hooves t
. 92I-
Eumm H. Z$1n-van of §|nmsgaon$
Mr
MrK Mr. Edwa
Kr. Clog:DIRECTOR
B:parhn2ni:'just&c
Fnsqbn, §. OI.
1!: .l-_-..,..--43, _ ,.
» .>-=--
r*92'
In
. ~ ti
V-_.
_-_-.|-nu
-no--r.-I
"9'
i-F1
H 51-.. .' "vig-. ,
.~.!92!__,,.,..31/ estion #90 January 16, 1933.t!! Special Agent.
QMORANDQM FOR THE DIRECTOE
A! Employee suggests that since a recent decision of the
Supreme Court in the case entitled JACK GEBARDI, at al, Vs. the
United States has been handed down, that there should be a change in
the manuah incorporating the gist of the holding in this case under
the heading, "White Slave Traffic Act", in the Manual of Instructions.
The committee has already passed favorably upon a similar
recommendation.
B! Employee suggests that the GEBARDI case be cited at
the bottom of page 5 of the White Slave Traffic Act Section of the
Manual of Instructions. _
The committee has recommended favorably with reference to
a suggestion which would include this information in the manual.
- G! Employee suggests that the White Slave Traffic Act
Section of the Manual of Instructions he amended to provide that all
possible evidence should be secured to show whether the victim
entered into a conspiracy with the man to violate the White Slave
Traffic Act, and also whether she furnished or assisted in furnishing
means of transportation, or took an active part in violation of the
act... _
Due to the fact that the Manual of Instructions is suggestive}T||.1h.92r2
. Tt.1s.n'1,_
rd!
in its manner, the citation of the above case, together with the require-
ments of the case for investigative action, would appear to be __i _,, mi
sufficient. l "* '"ancosnan 1?.! %"¢!/~
W ,1";FEB 1 01933 ResPectfI-11-lyn _ &;::=@§4_l:i*F=l |'~~§¥T=Y1~""~='»
-. i F 7 [933 fl! 92 p_
-..- .._.-.. . . 0 _ii Wag, __ Wt -' , _ I._a-or v- z
!!92L.¬' _ ._
92"Hui
/'9292
3. ..
1 . 4
-=
-4..-»-we
_=._:
I
. I#1
-3- /x 1
L.1X
92.
-_ 1
Q
I
92
K.
I
u
v
~.g cc-28'; _R HOOVER -mzcfon ' '
I. IX _ *7 ,-:'I,r_ Iehzral Bureau nf Investigation
I 0 u ,' '
I '. Initrh Qtates Bzpartment of Justice
1..
Uep¬1_=EH1:E is advised, suggestions be made to than as to what action they
.92!92
rx
v../ IMr. To1son_____
Mr. E. A. Tamn
1 . r. Clegg___
Mr. Ceffey___
Mr. Glavin___
Mr. Ladd
.-:-1. 7 _' Mr. Nic1:ola__"_'§Q-' main-i'"gtgn' B. 6. Mr. Rolen
Mr. '1racy___i
Mr. Caruoni
Mr. I:hrb0________
Mr. Hendon___
Mr. N.'cGuire_
Mr. Mumford
Mr. Piper_t
Mr. Quinn TTole. Bonsai
Mr. Nasal
Miss Beshm__92_92._ _
JKM:BK June 2s, 191,3
pMEM:0RANDUM_F0_R_p_lfl._ E. A. _
The attached sheet covers a call June __ , A3 from
Assistant Ditector. H. Clegg to Assistant DJ'.re92tor 1. Rosen
conceming the handling by the Departzna-mt o a menorandnnn fromthe Director relative to Federal Judge E. Kgebb, Western District mu Qwqyof North Carolina, who is decidedly out of e in comparison with _'§
other judges in imposing sentences, and Hr. C e g's _z_fecom:nendations, 92§fl? that such matters should be sent to Administra of
th Supreme Court rather than to the Departmen and, second, that if the
should take .
The memors.ndu.m to which Mr. Clegg referred was smt to the -.
Attorney General on June 3, 191,3, 66.8051.-e-21.! outlining Judge Webb's
leniency, pointing out the results_t'6'"th'¬ EJr'eau's operations, and con-
eluded: "I thought I should bring the above situation to your attention
for any action that you deem advisable. =92
I believe the action taken in this case was the proper one. It is
certainly not the function of the FBI as an investigative and law enforcement
agency to bring such e situation directly to the attention of the Supreme
Court. Such action would be a complete contradiction to our long established
policy of impartiality and divorcement from judicial or administrative '
decisions and recommendations. Furthermore, I do not believe it is the ;'
Director's responsibility to suggest or recommend to the Attorney General =
what action he should take in such a situation. A matter such as this !
is purely one of policy for which the responsibility is his, and the Bureau,
I believe, would be more apt to be embarrassed by the improper execution
of its suggestions with no opportunity for protest than to leave such matters
in the hands of the Attorney General as they should be.92.
"l' Respectfully, {92_
., 92" J" .D. M. Ladd ',_-,./W
'4 * iPvvm Attachment ' ,1 _ _
1 i I
BUY
92~/ 1
F
}
I
>
1
-.__-_-.7
vs
-1-llr. clegg called and advised that 17.8.1. T/| Qdle, being considered as a possible successor to udge Iebb when
he dies, was in receipt of a letter from Asst. A-G Iendell Berge.
Attached to the letter from Barge was a memorandum to Ir. Bsrge signed
' by ur. Hoover, pointing out that in some kindqf case; for example,
Selective Service, Judge Iebb imposes sentences that are all out ofkeeping with the seriousness of the qfense, 2; we too light, nildsannered, etc, and assumes a grandfatherlyl " feirge had sent
it down with the request that Csudls iahe shy obssrsatisns and consent
which appeared appropriate.1 .
ur. Clegg ran into Caudle when he, Caudle, was on his
way over to see Judge Iebb to show him the letter_fron 1+. Hoover.
Hr. clegg requested that he not do it inasmuch as to was Judge
Iebb's business to give out sentences in Selective service cases and
it would sake any Agent who had to appear before Judge lebb in the
future very unhappy as to what Judge Iebb would probably say.
.Ur. Clegg advised he felt the memorandum should have been
sent to the Administrative Qfice of the Supreme Court where it could
have been summarized and given to the Judge, and at the next conference
of Judges in that territory the presiding Judge could have a general
discourse upon the imposition of sentences, and not mention the FBI
complaint.
ur. Clegg suggested that probably we should not forego
sending such matters to the Bepartnent but we ehculdaleo include in
the memorandum our suggestion_for thehguidance as to what they should
" do with its
Q
I 44 -ye 51; -~ =5/5
EBGLCSUBL
;,.-- t . __E " -"92"=< ":'.-'~.*92-92'if~'-'~ ' I $2 .92 in _.e ~#lr..h.W y, , :w1t' __ . _~v- 1": _. -i¢_;-,.-':-' ~,_-v ' 1' 1 1. --i»sn;>;;t.» -~vswHis4§e
.1,-
-,,.r-- __ »I
_ 92 , _ . 92
t
-'.~-».----- V " 1-»; .-1» 92' .' -
-._. _ - , . Hi-.92. t-...-»..- -:~- . MI ' I .i'II|l§- *2 i.<- ~ -2.; -. 1" i-*-' .-. ,~.92
» .- ; - .-sq: 1. .1. ..~.¢921¢....~. -
».-,-.... _. i
_. 4.. __,,~92
_" -- 1-;--";' : =.1r ,17- -- is --,._~_. =v.-_-.¢.:.-'1 q.
"' _ 1* Q. ._._ r ~~~ * =*wwe¥#r¬¥*e-Y .. r:r .T ? _
. - . -_ < _~ :-.-;i»_
___._i_*iVi_:_._ __ ___1s__'_'1_-.|, . .-._--.., -._
'-. I 1
aw--~--~-~.-::-. 92_ ¬
- -- .,* ~ - I --"~ .- t: .!¥~-_'-"vs 1:,-":::--*-":-:2'1;:,§n; T -:;¢-@:-*_~1.'f:':-1'
A . N"... . __ ., ._ .. ._-1-1 - f5=:§ -'I'IIan '--1r" u;.-.. ;9_-;_~. an-1. » __e1~ I - 7' .. ' _ " -2- 1'.-F--'. N 9' '5-, Q1 ._-.__ ..~ s-~.-4#_.fr4..,§-L »-.. ~..,. .4. ..... V-qu-l-cg;-Q--A-nkl-'u_|¢*?.- 4 ' '
>, 1 --. --~ih& rt - - _ _. ti;-1. ;9292.'9292:'=;1"i_. - __
_ .: ..4Lyr{__
I - I *..3i§'f
,,T_ *§$
' 2 _ .,_.:, K] -1on
rP'*_*:*i-"**"'.-"'
. ..--ya--92_»l92'.v4..
-I ~-'~¢!'!'-L
.-.;_.~.-- -31; 4é='.'.-'.'§"'-- ,. .' .,.Lf t -z,-,-_~,_" ..#1-Y 1_..
'~~a*¬1
,_,,T.4,;_.
J @@Q<:$
<
.1- s -'r- ~ _ .-an-= --_s'---an--.
. ul. -. _,- ,_
- .<- _,. r 's.5 .'- V:
9 we-
_ .. fr-.r. 4
-v, ---_- -_ . ~;=_ --v ."{92 - i .._,4.-,. ...,-.-.. ~ .92 ~__
'1.-: Er -.1_ 7 -'-_'_~--..=. .'_-xi - - _'._-2~-'
_,,- __-- -."'.. ..,..'. ._ _. . _-_ensf _¢»»i _ Te ? "it
=31 J3; "?"?s e
s , t ti?! T
:;=t _r?1 33531 i
_ " . , _' t 3'? - V. s._,.i'--1;, I 5:
_. I-_
,;. -. *3». -
. V I
- -s.___¢ _
¢zs=3w,.
H, .L -1 "-5-,;---,, -¢ _92down
;_ 2. Incl.- orrlclz or ulnzcroa , _ ,j*Y=;¢:___ .
. -._-ii v D|v|a|ou or luau:-nennou r ' 1 Q -..5-92_:, _¢ » ,1 ' , '~'L-K-" W . 9 . ,1=??'<e.,<~_= * ~ : 92
_M¢P" ,;;I-- 1 . »
1 m'r=nc1a an
June 11, 1934
I. I,_!1."'. .. .
::£:.;3;_*..r~.r:1>=_.g: PO_R_ p ialxaz-:_c_t9§~:-l'"-s-"""
I have,reviewed the attecnecéecisions hunoed
by theA§upreme Court, and with one exception
have noted therein nothing of interest to the Divisioi
The one exception is the decision sanded coun in t.e c
entitled Xargaret Shea*Lynch against the United State:and San!§ilner against the United States. In these
cases the United States demurred to the petition file:
in alar Risk Insurance case on the ground that t?m
Court was without jurisdiction to entertain the suit
because tne consent of the United States to be sued
had been withdrawn by the Act of larch 20, 1933,
Clause 3, 48, Statute 9, commonly called the Econohy
Act. The Lower Courts sustained tne denurrers,their
judgments being affirmed by the Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Supreme Court reversed the decision.
Supervisor Lott, handling War Risk Insurance cases,
will prepare a bulletin or form letter to all field
offices as soon es Mr. Beardslee has submitted
information relative to the probable practical effect
of this decision upon pending Ker Risk InsuranceLitigation. _. ;§s!- :;amo--in TREUOSDED _ 772:! éJ:¢w *
R spec * *
WDEXEZD D »?.Y" - -.<*§ON
-'.'-' '7 MJUN181934J;fP3E
_ _ r_. _.______ __
1- F.LE
-,-.-._1~,,¢- . _.'-~: '- .-" '.' '.5'- ' -" '--.1i|$..;1 3r#u -w " .- "-14- 4 -5; .; " :'-92.>. - -. x V+.-'--.=.-'.=:-F:-:-r.-.41-_.st.' -".'L F- -~ 92 - '21 - .>r-~== -- ~=-.=._-=e=.-:.'=t;.=:;:'-.-.~.» . i-' ..--_.*-;-_i~_-- ,_,~-_-_- ' P "J» -it l . .- 92 E-. .i .7 . 1 .. Z,--rg-';~¢ - _:__ _ _ _ .. ._..*+i-1:,...-...-.-...-.i._.
.'92 T92 4, [i.2;J ix?
_ __ : L. ,_;_ __-4,, :__ ... _ .w.."IQ '~~' -"" " ' Nil@_1,,¢.._;,-4-_$_ 921_ I-5--n-";~.__3~*~4.
__,. _. , -;n,,,_.a_.:,._'c. -
",,..,s".,-_.-. '1-+1-»:..::K. _ I~l'.-._Z:_-= " J .:T.':: ,5 "._V.'_-;_»_;_.; . :- : -ex:-L , ...<s=- -_,..-.- ,q__ . _, . - ..
- F_4n _ . 1
,-=.__. , . |92.92 . -
.q.-.c_~. 1' >-._. . »_.v.,, . .19v .,...... .-.,-nw - ",_
-._. _i,__. 1 -@4-
-~..-.. -h . - - --
___ . _?. " £' ."T."" "'
. -0.. ... -» ,. -rs-W
.- .._.._._. . -..__
3W '- '-. I" 1"I
.92. t-_
QI .
. -1-s
l
'|I"Iw¢92--4 -. - -' -~ - '.. , -_ - _ '-1| .-
r -. '
w L;-7-=~:.¢_gu>'-;qi'5'<f~li',-"-.:A. u-1 . ..
-.-41 ..
1. .
__ ,.- 4
. -I_.
_-.. '_.'. ..=< ._.. . ~.--.-.1 .1-:.-1|---. -.,:_- 1.;m;.=:;-- -. .._.n_.... ,_ -- _. _' F -1,5, rst+ ~- i t. er7' --*~ "» : i-"5:-r-3
-1:5I
J; *:rt'...té .. I
. J4 |.__ . _ _.If-7'.',_-1 fl» *'--_,,-u_-..- .23,I
-J -. - '- - _ - ,__ _ _ ,,, ,_, r.-.-.¢..92 ." T; é_4.' ___, I-5'" _--/- . . _
_,.__;.E.v 92-¢: " ""'*"'I 4
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Nos. 855 and 861.--OCTOBER TERM, 1933.
. . Certiorari to theMargaret Shea Lynch, Petitioner, United States circuit
855 us. ... . .. . . . .._ - . uourt or AppB8lS ror tneUnited States of America. Fifth Circuit
On Certiorari to the
United State Circuit861 vs. ' . Court of Appeals for theUnited States of America. Seventh CircuitSam Wilner, Petitioner,
[June 4, 1934.]
Mr. Justice Bmmnrns delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases, which are here on ccrtiorari, present for decision
the same question. In each, the plaintiff is the beneciary under
a policy for yearly renewable term insurance issued during the
World War pursuant to the War Risk Insurance Act of October 6,
1917, c. 105, Article IV, §§ 400-405. The actions were brought in
April, 1933, in federal district courts to recover amounts alleged to
be due. In each case it is alleged that the insured had, before
September 1, 1919 and while the policy was in force, been totally and
permanently disabled; that he was entitled to compensation suffi-
cient to pay the premiums on the policy until it matured by death;
that no compensation had ever been paid; that the claim for pay-
ment was presented by the beneciary after the death of the in-
sured; that payment was refused; and that thereby the disagree-
ment arose which the law makes a condition precedent to the right
to bring suit. In No. 855, which comes here from the Fifth Cir-
cuit, the insured died November 27, 1924. In No. 861 which
1Section 404 provides: That during the period of war and thereafter
until converted the insurance shall be term insurance for successive terms of
one year each. Not later than ve years after the data of the termination of
the war as declared by proclamation of the President of the United States,
the term insurance shall be converted, without medical examination, into such
form or forms of insurance as may be prescribed by regulations and as the
insured may request. Regulations shall provide for the right to convert into
ordinary life, twenty payment life, endowment maturing at age sixty-two,
and into other usual forms of insurance. . . ."
I
2 Lynch va United States.
comes here from the Seventh Circuit, the insured died May 15, 1929.
In each case, the United States demurred to the petition on the
ground that the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the
suit, because the consent of the United States to be sued had been
withdrawn by the Act of March 20, 1933, c. 3, 48 Stat. 9, com-
only called the Economy Act.
The plaintis duly claimed that the Act deprived them oi prop-
erty without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amend-
ment. The district courts overruled the objection; sustained the
demurrers and dismissed the complaints. Their judgments were
airmed by the circuit courts of appeals. 67 F. d! 490; 68 F.
d! 442. The only question requiring serious consideration re-
lates to the construction and effect to be given to the clause of § 17
of the Ewnomy Act upon which the Government relies; for the
character and incidents of War Risk Insurance and the applicable
ruies of constitutional law have been settled by decisions of this
Court. The clause in question is:
. . . all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable
term insurance are hereby repealed . . . .
First. War Risk Insurance policies are contracts of the United
States. is consideration for the Governments obligation, the in-
sured paid prescribed monthly premiums. White v. United States,
270 U. S. 175, 180. True, these contracts, unlike others, were not
entered into by the United States tor a business purpose. The
policies granted insurance against death or total disability with-
out medical examination, at net premium rates based on the Ameri-
can Experience Table of Mortalitjs and three and one-half per
cent interest, the United States bearing both the whole expense
of administration and the excess mortality and disability cost re-
sulting from the hazards of war. In order to eect a benevolent
purpose heavy burdens were assumed by the Government. But
='I'he disbursements to June 30, 1933, for term and automatic insurance the
latter provided for those who were permanently and totally disabled or who
died within 120 days after entrance into the service and before making appli-
cation for term insurance! exceeded the premium receipts by $l,166,939,057.
Administrator of Veterans Affairs, Report for Year 1933, p. 28. The annual
coat of administration was estimated at $1,744,038.56. Report of United
States Veterans Bureau for 1922, p. 465. War Risk Insurance was devised
in the hope that it would, in large measure, avoid the necessity of granting
pensions. Term insurance was issued at a very low premium rate. Over
4,684,000 persons applied before the armistice to the amount of aboutLynch vs. United States. 3
the policies, although not entered into for gain, are legal obliga-
tions of the same dignity as other contracts of the United States
and possess the same legal incidents.
War Risk Insurance, while resembling in benevolent purpose
pensions, compensation allowances, hospital and other privileges
accorded to former members of the army and navy or their de-
pendents, dilfers from them iundamentally in legal incidents. Pen-
sions, compensation allowances and privileges are gratuities- They
involve no agreement of parties; and the grant of them creates no
vested right. The benets conferred by gratuities may be redis-
tributed or withdrawn at any time in the discretion _of Congress.
United States v. Teller, 107 U. S. 64, 68; Frisbie v. United States,
157 U. S. 160, 166; United States v. Cook, 257 U. S. 523, 527. On
tho other hand War Rich policies, being contracts, are property
and create vested rights. The terms of these contracts are to he
found in part in the policy, in part in the statutes under which
they are issued and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
In order to promote efficiency in administration and justice in
the distribution of War Risk Insurance benets, the Administra-
tion was given power to prescribe the form of policies and to make
regulations. The form prescribed provided that the policy should
be subject to all amendments to the original Act, to all regulations
then in force or thereafter adopted. Within certain limits of appli-
cation this form was deemed authorized by the Act, United States
v. White, 270 U. S. 175, 180, and, as held in that case, one whose
vested rights were not thereby disturbed could not complain of
subsequent legislation affecting the terms of the policy. Such legis-
lation has been frequent. Moreover, from time to time, privileges
$40,000,000,000 for War Rial: term insurance; but over 75 per cent of the
men who carried term insurance while in the service never paid a premium alter
the war. See Report of Bureau of War Risk Insurance for 1920, pp. 5, 7, 41;
Report of United States Veterans Bureau for 1922, p. 456; for 1925, p. 268.
¥Extension of class of beneciaries: Acts of June 25, 1918, c. 104, §2,
40 sun. 609; Dee. 24, 1919, c. 16, gt 2, 3, 4, 13, 41 Stat. 371, 315; Aug. 9,
1921, c. 57, ~23, 42 son. 141, 155; May 29, 1925, c. s75, us, 45 Stat. 964,
967. Upheld: White v. United States, 270 U. S. 175.
Payment where beneciary dies before exhaustion of policy: e. g., Dec. 24,
1919, c. 1s, gs 15, 16, 41 sun. 311, are; Aug. 9, 1921, c. 57, tee, 42 Stat.
147, 156; June 7, 1924, c. 320, t 26, 43 Stat. 607, 614.
Payment where beneciary incompetent: e. g., Dec. 24, 1919, c. 16, §5, 41
Stat. 371; Mar. 2, 1923, c. 173, § 1, 42 Stat. 1374; July 2, 1926, c. 723, t2,
44 Stat. 790, 791.
4 Lynch VB. United States.
granted were voluntarily enlarged and new ones were given
by the Government. But no power to curtail the amount of
the benets which Congress contracted to pay was reserved to
Congress; and none could be given by any regulation promulgated
by the Administrator. Prior to the Economy Act, no attempt was
made to lessen the obligation of the Government. Then, Congress,
by a clause of thirteen words included in a very long section deal-
ing with gratuities, repealed all laws granting or pertaining to
yearly renewable term insurance". The repeal, if valid, abro-
gated outstanding contracts; and relieved the United States from
l liability on the contracts without making compensation to the
oeneciarics.
Second. The Fifth Amendment commands that property be not
taken without making just compensation. Valid contracts are
property, whether the obligor be a private individual, a munici-
pality, a State or the United States. Rights against the United
Reinstatement of lapsed policies: Aug. 9, 1921, c. 57, #27, 42 Stat. 147,
156; Mar. 4, 1923, c. 291, Q7, 42 Stat. 1521, 1525; July 2, 1926, c. 723,
M 15, 1'7, 44 Stat. 790, 799, B00.
Liability undertaken on certain policies which have lapsed through failure
of payment of premiums, been cancelled by surrender or estoppel of later
contract: c. g., Dec. 24, 1919, c. 16, $12, 41 Stat. 371, 374; Aug. 9, 1921,
c. 57, $27, 42 Stat. 147, 156; July 3, 1930, c. 849, §24, 46 Stat. 991, 1001.
Incontcstability in favor of insured; Aug. 9, 1921, c. 57, $30, 42 Stat.
147, 157; July 3, 1980, c. B49, §24, 46 Stat. 499, 1001.
Administration may waive time for premium payment, grant various toler-
ances: Aug. 9, 1921, c. 57, to 24, 28, 42 Stat. 147, 155, 157; Mar. 4, 1923,
291, t 8, 42 Stat. 1521, 1526.
Broceeds exempted from taxation: June 25, 1918, c. 104, Q 2, 40 Stat. 609.
The War Risk Insurance Act. provided for the conversion of yearly renew-
able term insurance into level premium insurance at any time within ve years
from the date of the termination of the war ; and The World s War Veterans
Act of June 7, 1924, e. 320, $304, 43 Stat. 607, 625, provided that all yearly
renewable term insurance should cease on July 2, 1926. But provision for ex-
tending the period for conversion and for reinstatement were made by later
statutes and by regulations issued thereunder; June 2, 1926, c. 449, 44 Stat.
686; May 29, 1928, c. B75, Q14, 45 Stat. 964, 968; July 3, 1930, c. 849, 1} 22, 46
Stat. 991, 1001; June 24, 1932, c. 276, 47 Stat. 334. See Reports of United
State Veterans Bureau for 1926, pp. 54-56; for 1927, pp. 23-25; Reports of
Administrator of Veterans Aairs for 1931, p. 32; for 1932, p. 42; tor 1933,
p. 28.
5But compare Acts of June 25, 1918, c. 104, $2, 40 Stat. 609; Aug. 9, 1921,
c. 57, §15, 42 Stat. 147, 152; March 4, 1923, c. 291, pl, 42 Stat. 1521;
March 4, 1925, c. 553, §3, 43 Stat. 1302, 1303.Lynch vs. United States. 5
States arising out of a contract with it are protected by the Fifth
Amendment. United States v. Central Pacic R. Co., 118 U. S. 235,
238; United States v. Northern Pacic Ry. Co., 256 U. S. 51, 64,
67. When the United States enters into contract relations, its
rights and duties therein are governed generally by the law appli-
cable to contracts between private individuals. That the contracts
of war risk insurance were valid when made is not questioned. As
Congress had the power to authorize the Bureau of War Risk In-
surance to issue them, the due process clause prohibits the United
States from aunulling them, unless, indeed, the action taken falls
within the federal police power or some other paramount power.
The Solicitor General does not suggest either in brief or argu-
ment, that there were supervening conditions which authorized
Congress to abrogate these contracts in the exercise of the police
or any other power. The title of the Act of March 20, 1933, repels
any such suggestion. Although popularly known as the Economy
Act, it is entitled an Act to maintain the credit of the United
States . Punctilious fullment of contractual obligations is essen-
tion to the maintenance of the credit of public as well as private
debtors. No doubt there was in March, 1933, great need of economy.
In the administration of all government business economy had
become urgent because of lessened revenues and the heavy obliga-
tions to be issued in the hope of relieving widespread distress.
Congress was free to reduce gratuities deemed excessive. But Con-
gress was without power to reduce expenditures by abrogating eon-
tractual obligations of the United States. To abrogate contracts, in
the attempt to lessen government expenditure, would be not the
practice of economy, but an act of repudiation. The United
States are as much bound by their contracts as are individuals.
If they repudiate their obligations, it is as much repudiation,
"Compare United States 1:. Bonk of the Metropolis, 15 Pet. 377, 392; The
Floyd Acccptanccs, 7 Wall. 666, 675; Garrison 1'. United States, 7 Wall. 688,
690; Smoots Case, 15 Wall. 36, 47; Vcrmilye 1'. Adams Express Co., 21 Wall.
138, 144; Cooke 11. United States, 91 U. S. 339, 396; United States o. Smith,
94 U. S. 214, J17; Hollcrbach 1'. United States, 233 U. S. 165, 171; Reading
Steel Casting Co. 11. United States, 268 U. 156, 188; United States v. Na.-
tional Excliunge Bank, IITU U. 5. 527, 534.
TComparc Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321; Hipulite Egg Co. 1'. United States,
220 U. S. 45, 58; Hoke 1'. United States, 227 U. S. 308, 323; Hlamiltou 1!.
Kentucky Distilling & Warehouse Co., 251 U. S. 146; Calhoun 1'. Mosaic, 253
U. S. 170, 175. Compute Home Building 8: Luau Association v. Blaisdell,
290 U. S. 395, 430.
6 Lynch vs. United States.
with all the wrong and reproach that term implies, as it would be
if the repudiator had been a State or a municipality or a citizen.
The Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700, 719.
Third. Contracts between individuals or corporations are im-
paired within the meaning of the Constitution whenever the right to
enforce them by legal process is taken away or materially lessened.
A different rule prevails in respect to contracts of sovereigns.
Compare Principality of Monaco v. illississippi, decided May 21,
1934. The contracts between a Nation and an individual are
only binding on the conscience of the sovereign and have no pre-
usions to compulsive force. They confer no right of action
dependent of the sovereign will/" The rule that the United
States may not be sued without its consent is all embracing.
In establishing the system of War Risk Insurance, Congress
vested in its administrative agency broad power in making de-
terminations of essential facts-power similar to that exercised
in respect to pensions, compensation, allowances and other gratui-
tous privileges provided for veterans and their dependents. But
while the statutes granting gratuities contain no specic provision
for suits against the United States," Congress, as if to emphasize
the contractual obligation assumed by the United States, when
issuing War Risk policies, conferred upon beneciaries substan-
tially the same legal remedy which beneciaries enjoy under
policies issued by private corporations. The original Act provided
in §405:
That in the event of disagreement as to a claim under the con-
'1ct of insurance between the bureau and any beneciary or bene-
'aries thereunder, an action on the claim may be brought against
M16 United States in the district court of the United States in and
for the district in which such beneciaries or any one of them
resides. " 1
Although consent to sue was thus given when the policy
issued, Congress retained power to withdraw the consent at any
"See Worthen Co. u. Thomas, No. 856, decided May 28, 1934; and cases
cited by Mr. Justice Sutherland in Home Building 8: Loan Association -u.
Blaisdell, 290 U. S. 398, .
"Hamilton, The Federalist, No. 81.
1°See Sixth, infra, p. 11.
"The provision for suit was later modied. Bee World War Veterans Act
1924, ta 19, as amended by Act of July 3, 1930, c. 849, 46 Stat. 991, 992, under
which these suits were brought.Lynch vs. United States. 7
time. For consent to sue the United States is a privilege accorded;
not the grant of a property right protected by the Fifth Amend-
ment. The consent may be withdrawn, although given after much
deliberation and for a pecuniary consideration. DeGroot v. United
States, 5 Wall. 419, 432. Compare Darrington v. State Bank, 13
How. 12, 17; Beers v. Arkansas, 20 How. 527-529; Gordon v. United
States, 7 Wall. I88, 195; Railroad Company v. Tennessee, 101 U. S.
337; Railroad Commission v. Alabama, 101 U. S. 832; In re Ayers,
123 U. S. 443, 505; Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 17; Baltzer v.
North Carolina, 161 U. S. 240; Baltzer cl: Tacks v. North Caro-
lina, 161 U. S. 246." The sovereigns immunity from suit exists
whatever the character of the proceeding or the source of the
right sought to be enforced. It applies alike to causes of action
arising under acts of Congress, DeGroot v. United States, 5 Wall.
419, 431; United States v. Babcock, 250 U. S. 328, 331; and to
those arising from some violation of rights conferred upon the
citizen by the Constitution, Schillinger V. United States, 155 U. S.
163, 166, 168. The character of the cause of actionthe fact that
it is in contract as distinguished from tortmay be important in
determining as under the Tucker Act! whether consent to sue
was given. Otherwise, it is of no signicance. For immunity from
suit is an attribute of sovereignty which may not be battered away.
Mere withdrawal of consent to sue on policies for yearly renewable
term insurance would not imply repudiation. When the United
States creates rights in individuals against itself, it is under no
obligation to provide a remedy through the courts. United States
v. Bobcock, 250 U. S. 328, 331. It may limit the individual to ad-
ministrative remedies. Tutwn v. United States, 270 U. S. 568, 576.
And withdrawal of all remedy, administrative as well as legal,
would not necessarily imply repudiation. So long as the contract-
ual obligation is recognized, Congress may direct its fullment
without the interposition of either a court or an administrative
tribunal.
Fourth. The question requiring decision is, therefore, whether
in repealing all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable
term insurance Congress aimed at the right or merely at the
remedy. It seems clear that it intended to take away the right;
"Compare also Imliolf-Berg Silk Dyeing Co. -v. United States, 43 F. 11!
836, 841; Synthctics Patent Co. 1:. Sutherland, 22 F. cl! 491, 494; Kogler
1:. Miller, 288 Fed. 806.
8 Lynch vs. United States.
and that. Congress did not intend to preserve the right and merely
withdraw consent to sue the United States." As Congress took
away the contractual right it had no occasion to provide for with-
drawal of the remedy. Moreover, it appears both from the lan-
guage of the repealing clause and from the context of §17 that
Congress did not aim at the remedy. The clause makes no mention
of consent to sue. The consent to sue had been given originally by
§~l05 of the Act of 1917, which, like the later substituted sections,
applied to all kinds of insurance, making no specic reference to
arly renewable term policies. Obviously, Congress did not in-
.¢nd to repeal generally the section providing for suits." For in
March 1933, most of the policies then outstanding were converted '
policies, in no way aected by the Economy Act."
That Congress sought to take away the right of beneciaries of
yearly renewable term policies and not to withdraw their privilege
to sue the United States, appears, also, from an examination of the
other provisions of §17. The section reads:
"All public laws granting medical or hospital treatment, domi-
ciliary care, compensation and other allowances, pensions, dis-
ability allowance, or retirement pay to veterans and the dependents
of veterans of the Spanish-American War, including the Boxer
Rebellion and the Philippine Insurrection, and the World War,
or to former members of the military and naval service for injury
or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in the mili-
tary or naval service except so far as they relate to persons who
served prior to the Spanish-American War and to the dependents
of such persons, and the retirement of oicers and enlisted men
the Regular Army, Navy, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard! are
nereby repealed, and all laws grantingdor pertaining to yearly re-
newable term insurance are hereby repealed, but payments in
accordance with such laws shall continue to the last day of the
third calendar month following the month during which this Act
is enacted. ii
"Veteran Regulation No. 8, promulgated March 31, 1933, pursuant to this
Act provides: V. Except la stated above [matter not here relevant] no pay-
ment may hereafter be made under contracts of yearly renewable term insur-
ance including automatic insurance! and all pending claims or claims here-
after led for such benets shall be disallowed.
14Sce Note 11.
1-'>Tiie number of converted policies in force June 30, 1933, was 616,069.
Administrator of Veterans Atfairs, Report for 1933, pp. 25, 27.
The rest of the section is as follows:
The Administration of Veterans Affairs under the general direction of
the President shall immediately cause to be reviewed all allowed claims underILynch vs. United States. 9
That section deals principally with the many grants of gratuities
to veterans and dependents of veterans. Congress apparently as-
R +1» 0» +1-92 I-Iran 4-l'nn-Q no '|'92ni-vunnn Hun lncrnl |'h'lH Qf:su.|.u.92:u. numb nucic nun uv 92.uu.92..s92.u.92.-1.. vuunvuu 92u.n92.| avail; uvubvuu
these gratuities and the outstanding contracts for yearly renew-
able term insurance. It used in respect to both classes of benevo-
lences the substantially same phrase. It repealed all public
laws" relating to the several categories of gratuities; and it re-
pealed all laws granting or petraining to such insurance. _No
right to sue the United States on any of these gratuities had been
no-no-ol-Ar ':92-92 {Jun nnnnuuul nfnlnfnu nnn*|'-nrilintr '|'11n'l - B11! {I113 'Fi|J"1f Insaauncu 111 nut: BUICLQL ilbllbllbbl uvl-l-I-92-1111-I5 us-n.-1-u, uuu. Isl-II; nabs-u vu
the gratuity might be withdrawn at any time. The dominant in-
tention was obviously to abolish rights, not remedies.
That Congress intended to take away the right under outstand-
ing yearly renewable term policies, and was not concerned with
the consent to sue the United States thereon, appears also from the
saving clauses in §17. These provide that all allowed claims
.1.-..I..-. 4-I-.1. ..l.,..m -.,.¢..--..- J 4,. 1nt92'rr92,, n-.. 4.. I-U. -.-.-12..- .1 n92'I92r Han 'l-mun.uuuci UUU uuuvt: lcuziicu bu lawn nu: LU ut: uzvuzwou. auu u.u: uninc-
ts are to be paid "where a person is found entitled under this
Act - and that nothing contained in this section shall interfere 1
the above referred to laws and where a person is found entitled under this
Act, authorize payment or allowance of benets in accordance with the pro-
visions of this Act commencing with rst day of the fourth calendar month
following the month during which this Act is enacted and notwithstanding
the provisions of section 9 of this Act, no further claim in such cases shall he
required. Provided, That nothing contained in this Section shall interfere with
payments heretofore made or hereafter to be made under contracts of yearly
renewable term insurance which have matured prior to the data of the enact-
ment of this Act and under which payments have been commenced, or on any
judgment heretofore rendered in a court of competent jurisdiction in any suit
on a contract of yearly renewable term insurance, or which may hereaiter be
rendered in any such suit now pending: Provided further, That subject to
such regulations as the President may prescribe, allowances may be granted
for burial and funeral expenses and transportation of bodies including
preparation of the bodies! of deceased veterans of any war to the places of
burial thereof in a sum not to exceed $107 in any one case.
The provisions of this title shall not apply to compensation or pension
except as to rates, time of entry into active service and special statutory
allowances! being paid to veterans disabled, or dependents of veterans who
died, as the result of disease or injury directly connected with active military
or naval service without benet of statutory or regulatory presumption of
service connection! pursuant to the provisions of tho laws in effect on the date
of enactment of this Act. The term compensation or pensions as used in this
paragraph shall not be construed to include emergency oicers retired pay
referred to in section 10 of this title.
10 Lynch vs. United States.
with payments to be made under contracts of yearly renewableter ' 'm insurance under which payments have commenced or, on anyjudgment heretofore rendered in a court of competent jurisdictionin an 'y suit on a contract of yearly renewable term insurance, orwhich may hereafter be rendered in any such suit now pending. That is, the rights under certain yearly renewable term policies are
excepted from the general repealing clause."
Fifth. There is a suggestion that although, in repealing all laws granting or pertaining to yearly renewable term ins urance ,Congress intended to take away the contractual right, it also in-ended to take away the remedy; that since it had power to takeaway the remedy, the statute should be given eect to that extent,even if void insofar as it purported to take away the contractualright. The suggestion is at war with settled rules of construction.It is true that a statute bad in part is not necessarily void in its
entirety. A provision within the legislative power may be allowed tostand if it is separable from the bad~ But no provision however un-objectionable in itself, can stand unless it appears both that, stand-ing alone, the provision can be given legal eect and that the l 'egis-lature intended the unobjectionable provision to stand in caseother rov' p isions held bad should fall. Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S.286, 288, 290. Here, both those essentials are absent. There is no
separate provision in §17 dealing with the remedy; and it doesnot appear that Congress wished to deny the remedy if the repealof the contractual right was held void under the Fifth Amendment.War Risk Insurance and the war gratuities were enjoyed, in thesin, by the same classes of persons; and were administered by
he same governmental agency. In respect of both, Congress hadtheretofore expressed its benevolent purpose perhaps more gener-ously than would have been warranted in 1933 by the nancialcondition of the Nation. When it became advisable to reduce theNations existing expenditures, the two classes of benevolenceswere associated in the minds of the legislators; and it was naturalthat they should have wished to subject both to the same treat-ment- But it is not to be assumed that Congress would have re-sorted to the device of withdrawing the legal remedy from bene-ciaries of outstanding yearly renewable term policies if it hadrealized that these had contractual rights. It is, at least, as prob-able that Congress overlooked the fundi iimental difference in legal
"Compare Veteran Regulation No. 8, March 31,5333. C11Lynch vs. United Smta
dean with inf bgneV0l61'lC8B ._ t classes 0 - v 3,1 obli-inmdents betwecnhtlgetoiiade payment of the Nation s leg§ 17 as that it wis E
' he - been based. In tgatmng - b l w EDP ? to have - 'des:Sixth. The§J1:ldg;n§l? fsE ::!E0U1y Act, but on § 5 lzclzeprflzf Af-main Illl ° 0 Ad inistrator of 6. ra - d rill decisions ren<1eF*d bi-ff tgheis tiille or the regllatli:1!$ti:§su bf. T15 ' n a Qfairs under the pmwmli nal and :0ncl11S1VB 0 med StatesPursuant theret0,dS}ll'la I!n0l.l?81' oicial 01 ° ' of tld Tolsllihrwtse anylaw and faqt 5131' tion to review by mandamusshall have Jl]l'lb 10. . is I-ghlt11 decision. _ _ edes does 11°?Smjfhis section, as the Solicitor General 0011" teran andts to ve. It ncerns 01113 gran ialto W9-1'..Bsk Insm-1? ncznsionio compensation alloWJ1'3:" iigtcap-hell depenlilegsvvhighpare erat11"i*=B- Th-e -piuposie iiieiai relief inprweffshaave been to remove the poSS?bllht:l'Y01 llIlSt8IlC¬S suggestedpears n under the specia I1 _ - V Unitedthat class °f case. eve ¢ 266 U. s. 18°: S " hem is 255-in Cr0uC}Ei'6vllU1Sm;:I21S-lfiisiied States v. Williams, 278 U ' st r 2 - ' ' d States V- ii es» ass. Comps" U' "- 57 Zd!Smith v. United States,
_ - _ 861 no Meadows, 281 U. S. General concedes that In N0 onThe Solicitor . . - - dependent. 1111Seventh. t d except that of lunsdmtmn Act discussed - ' sen equestion IS pron of the clause in § 17 of the lilconomyis entertained,the constli-Inc 10 t nds in N0_ 355, that if J111'1Sd1l,:;!lIlt the complaintabove. 9 con e Stained on the gI°92md 3 .
_ . - t showthe demurrerfshtjli Z153 cause of action, slnlce 1; lgflllgawo Thisfail "° at M thin the Period al owe . ' - 11 1'"t as brought wi tt ntlll of eit eH1-lat tdledilgctwwas not pleaded or brollgillt :!yz}:eaSElicitor Generala B59 v it brollg - - f 3, low. Ivor W85 - the petition 01 of the courts be . hgn opp0$ln¬ . -- 11 Court W - -11 h liketo the attei:it1on_o£92't],Visd0 not pass upon that question, 9292 icit of certiorari B - ' b theWt l t'ng to the merits, will be OPE for consideration Yothers 1'6 3 1
lower courts upon the reirlignla made of legislation by CongressEighth. Mention shim ts- encement of these am I 9 rovidesienacted since the comm 101, §2O, 48 Stat. 30 .1. Act of June 16 1933 G - - of Section 17, title I Public
' -t ding the provlswns laim for yearn re .iNotw1th§ cg entythird Congress, any c aid to the dateNumbered H 'n:1I'3~192ce 0 which premiums tlirepgovisions of lawnewableltegiioif the insured _ . . under edul led prior to Qf the 93' I _ - .laiin W85 Yd section 17 Wherem crepealed by Smi
==-"tr-*" --¢"s =-":*:'-*>.:r:-' ?.~.~. ' t'.- ".. .,-.s;...:-.n-- . -_t. i'.__-__.. Q, .'A___~_._. .1».-. ..92.--._ -.
' ..- . §._ .. . ., " '-» *-1- ,- , _ ,- ..-~ w. .- ._.- _ ;- _ _ .__ , .- 7--we - - - 7, s . -~~.-.-»---92-- _ »..- .-...._,t... _~--v- _ ' . .1 _ ... 7 _s _ - . ,._ . . < .--'?f ='"- -- ;-<1 - ."7...?'-':,:L'.= .'n9292»t '-j -' _- _- ~-e~,».-"-.' »,_ 1,1}.-
T!_ -___ -"- _ r- ,l .
I .. -:7
1*.-1' -- V "j,.;__- '1
' -"r - -_.-,.-.-.~__, . . . i,,__ _,,,-- --_ .4 -. .__..- t . ,.--.-92- .. l ._
. _ ' ,-,'_-__,_ __. ..'1 .-...';r = --2:". =.,.»_.*-.-_~ -- - rat'3 11-.;;e;a,=ueenr'i'=-r'..":i7{"<-.5. 7--.; '1 ~.-fa '
-' -' -- is 1'
I ~"*-. ' , .;._,. -:-2. A _ ._,'%_= I,
; . _ -_ -.}'|r~ '5'. -_| _ ,._-.92. _ . i . - P '
. .._ ::,!:'.; _. _ »._ . __ '
r
' ..- - Alf: -_e- ' ' '
" - f 7" -5' -- ~- 0'- - ----<~ i - -..r we _'-T--; ' _- out ; ;-'- 9
_- .. .. -7, g;.;
1 _ .
'"f" »=e;3;--~--r¢-1;-I-;!*.r'..1.:n 1.-a. Y!-w ,.....z:..,~~- -
' 2 EH5;-rt "::§="+F--="*"--Q __,__. ,7=>_
-.-_--~-.-, _ _ '*-'=$3"5-"Q-' - A '--- -.-- e-. '
.s-~ .~1='>z2t'*'
----: ti ii"-»~ -"-'., '1 '- '» 1- -u .... . - --'- -- -'5. ;_ .*::az .'r_1--1»-
.'_f.;. "__;;j_; _;,'' '--9231?t .
-
J
if
1;
012 Lynch vs. United States.
March 20, 1933, may be adjudicated by the Veterans Administra-
tion on the proofs and evidence received by Veterans Administra-
tion prior to March 20, 1933, and any person found entitled to the
benets claimed shall be paid such benets in accordance with and
in the amounts provided by such prior laws. . . ." ' -
2. Section 35 of the Independent Oices Appropriation Act of
1935, passed on March 27-28, 1934, over the Presidents veto, pro-
vides:
That notwithstanding the provisions of Section 17 of title I,
of an Act entitled An Act to maintain the Credit of the United
States Government" approved March 20, 1933 and Section 20
of an Act entitled An Act making appropriations for the Execu-
tive oices, etc. . . . approved June 16, 1933; any claim for renew-
able term insurance under the provisions of iaws repealed by Sec-
tion 17, wherein claim was duly led prior to March 20, 1933, and
on which maturity of the insurance contract had been determined
by the Veterans Administration prior to March 20, 1933, and
where payments could not be made because of the provisions of the
Act of March 20, 1933, or under the provisions of the Act of June
16, 1933, may be adjudicated by the Veterans Administration and
any person found entitled to yearly renewable term insurance bene-
ts claimed shall be paid such benets in accordance with and in
the amounts provided by such prior laws."
The provision in the Act of June 16, 1933, which wu enacted
before the entry of judgments by the district courts, does not ap-
pear to have been considered by the lower courts. The provision
in the Act of March 27-28, 1934, was enacted after the ling in
this Court of the petitions for certiorari but before the writs were
granted. As neither of these Acts was referred to by the Solicitor
General or by counsel for the petitioners, we assume that there is
nothing in them, or in any action taken thereunder, which should
affect the disposition of the cases now before us. Any such matter
31:0 -mill has nnnn fer Qsneirlnv-atign '|'92v I-ha lnwar 09111-'l'q 1-mnn fl'|F a nan; up uyu 1 uaupa ml; yuv 1.11 ya v ma nu fun ul-92r
remand.
Reversed.
A true copy.
Test:
Clerk, Supreme Jourt, U. S.
"See instructions issued April 11, 1934, by the Administrator of Veterans
Affairs, pursuant to the Act oi March 27-28,
_ if-_-__:-.': r .~ .~ '- 1: . , ._ .
?-..- ea» ,,;¢,e'-irw.',,,_,-¢-M» .,.**.*:3i{=,:-2-/K - .
f"-fs"';E-'1 -Kr" '._1 -"'*-I"£- - --.
I '
- s-|_. _....__,- nu:-i-Q i ' ~
t-'.~ =- ¥~#L-"---'1 Y"-..;*e'_' -I~I;;3' ' I " _'._92-". __ ._<. ; '1' ,- .-. - V.--1- sf us. .» --,.- ":i.-='.!;*
.1» =.---e. .e. .- i. . *_'*_t"-
ni>r- i..,.. ... ._.... ...». on .-no-e-.-. '
_. ,__, __".:_,_-,3 -. __., »§".»-_-.
if- volt!
-" '
.-...|_-'1
.'_'_ _ _ _ x:
.._._,;, _.4
_ _u - e_|I|IH -- -?Y':'r
. __,..._:...
' ,..~
r .-' 41,5." ~ '1 * e .."
-*'-r ' __, - ,p - a_ 4,,, '_ ...~..,1 _,~.._- =1 !4?:- we... 3"-*. rr?1§'..;-Z" "sea.r- ' "- '5
"
-' r'§_" _? ear. .-.-:. 11 .-. - :3 _'T-. .- _ _ - ...! I , ,3--w'~= L »- ' .'- -' ' -, - 1" 3% -. V. ,:_!. ¢1*'3sw'i-*'5§§¬..§"'~. w-~ =_-"a,-.wr- ,- _ .1, i _. ._ -, ;_ _ _'J-a-qe--.. c re; . I ¢-- P- --' *4-*5 ' ~' "' r-¢!"~¥:'.
,1:--+r-'11..-.~ 7.:-" W ' ' - -=73.i, rSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
No. 802. -Ocrosrzs Team, 1934.
John C. Lewis, as Receiver, etc., 1 Certiorari to the
Petitioner, ' United States Circuit
vs. Court of Appeals for the
Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland. Fifth Circuit.
[June 4, 1934.]
Mr. Justice BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under statutes of Georgia, in force since 1879, a bank, state or
national, may be appointed depository of state funds. To qualify
it must give a bond for the faithful performance of its duty. A
bond with surety creates a lien on all the banks assets, both those
held at the time of the execution of the bond and those subsequently
acquired. _
In July, 1928, the Governor of Georgia appointed The Hancock
National Bank of Sparta, Georgia, a state depository for the term
of four years. It gave a bond with the Fidelity and Deposit Com-
pany of Maryland as surety in the sum of $10,000 for the faithful
discharge of its duties. From time to time thereafter, until May
23, 1932, the tax eollector of Hancock County deposited in the bank
1"The bond to be made by the State depositories may be a personal bond
or may be made by a deposit with the State treasurer of United States bonds
or Georgia State bonds, or either one or both of said methods. Sec. 1256,
Code of Georgia 910!. Section..1252 provides that the depository bond
shall have "the same binding force and effect as the bond required by
law to be given by State treasurers, and, in ease of default shall be enforced in
like rnanner. Section 218 of the Code relating to the trcasurer's bond pro-
vides that a lien is hereby created in favor of the State upon the property
of the treasurer to the amount of said bond, and upon the property of tho
securities upon his said bond to the amount for which they may be severally
liable, from the date of the execution thereof." The Supreme Court
of Georgia held, in cases involving state banks, that under these statutes the
State acquires a lien on all the assets of a depository bank, both those at the
time of the execution of the bond and those subsequently acquired. See Seay
v. Bank of Rome, 60 Go. 609; Colquitt, Governor 12. Simpson, 72 Go. 501;
Simpson v. Lcdhetter, 79 Ga. 159. Compare State 1:. Brobstou, Receiver, 94
Ga. 95; Standard Accident Ins. Co. 1:. Luther Williams Bag -1: Trust Ce.,
45 Ga. App. S31.
7 iii 4/- 1/ if
2 Lewis vs. Fidelity <9 Deposit Co. of Maryland.
moneys collected on account of state taxes. On that day the Comp-
troller of the Currency declared the bank insolvent and appointed
a receiver for whom the petitioner, John C. Lewis, was later
substituted. The amount of state funds then on deposit was
$6,157.41. This sum, and the accrued interest, the company paid
to the State and received an assignment of its rights arising out
of the deposit. Then, the company brought in the federal court
for the liiiddle District of Georgia this suit in equity against the
receiver to enforce a lien for the amount upon all the assets in
his hands, claiming priority according to the date of the bond.
The District Court, after denying a motion to dismiss, heard the
cause substantially upon agreed facts. It ruled that the company
was entitled to the rights of the State by subrogation and by trans-
fer; held that neither the State nor the company was entitled to a
lien or to preferential treatment; and allowed the claim as one en-
entitled merely to a pro rota dividend. The Circuit Court of Ap-
peals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded
the cause for further proceedings, holding that the asserted lien was
valid, subsisting in favor of the company, and entitled to the
priority claimed. 67 F. d! 961. This Court granted certiorari.
291 U. S. .That court, following Pottor v. El Poso-Hudspefh Rood Dis-
trict, 62 F. :1! 498, ruled, as matter of federal law, that national
banks had under National Bank Act as enacted in 1864 power to
pledge assets to secure public deposits. It ruled as matter of state
law that the lien is a contractual one arising, not proprio vigoreby reason of the statutes, but by contract of the bank as an in-
cident of giving a personal bond; that these statutes apply to
both state and national banks and the scope of the lien is the
same in respect to both; declared, in describing its character, that
from the date of the bond the lien attaches to all property real
and personal then owned or thereafter acquired; that a grantee
of real estate having constructive notice would take subject to the
lien- that as to money, bonds, stocks, notes, drafts and other chosesin action, the lien of the State is inferior to the rights of third
persons who receive the property bono de in the ordinary course -' 1:of business prior to insolvency or sequestration; and that the iien
is inferior even to the right of depositors to set-o against their
own indebtedness that of the bank to them.L ' ' - .ewi-s vs. Fidelity cf: Deposit Co. of Maryland. 3
The ~o 1; t - - - .M,"L'_:n}1:_~ili3k_J f11¢1Bl notice of the fact that throuivhout thnit:-tiiiee years since the enactment of the law both t? 1 c1; . na ions ate banks had acted as state depositories; that the lien had big:
e f 'n orced against money and choses in action when captured by a
receivership, but had Hever been asse - rted as to commercial assets
transferred in due course of '. business- th 1; h -1,9 had presented no ob i 3 t B existence of thet I - .s ac e to the 01-dma,-y operanons of the
banking business or int r 'f d -e ere in any way with the performance 1-,Hat-iI_' '1!I| hnnlru 11¢ 4|-in; 8- .1 I Y . -- lvlillllzl vii uiclf Luefl fijntions. and -- t _ _ .> that a banks ap-pointment as state do ' 'D°B1t0I'y is customarily B-dvertised and ac-cepted as evidence f .31 F. a! 612. o soundness and credit. Compare In re Blalocki
In Texas c Pacic Ry Q0 V L _ - - . . O. Pottm-17, 291 U SCil of Manon v. Ben Sneede, 291 U. S. 262, decid.ed'8?f;t¬;,i?l1l :
°""Y °f the iudeme 1: b 1 . - n *3 0W, WE held that a national bank had
prior to the Act of Jhnn 95 roan .... i....- ..-1, woo, no power to make any pledge
to secure deposits exce pt th f - - _ e ederal deposits specically provided
for by Acts of Cg _h ngresa It follows that: 111 1928, no lien aroseW en the bank was appointed d 'epository, and that the judomemof the Circuit Court of A l:Ippeals must be reversed unless t he Actof J 25llll , 1930, c. 604, 46 Stat. 809, authorizes a national bankto SW8 as security a - general l _the Georgia statutes. ien of the character Prescribed by
That Act provides :
iiAny association ma yr P011 _ ' ' .°f a Stale OP any political subdie -diposn mh t Pf P b1='= moneythe saf k ' _vlSm thereof, give security fore- eeping and promptof the same kind as is authoridi-id} l!n92fIll:l¬Oif&¬d1i!fnl?1]deglIs¬8 deposited8 in wh'ch such association ' ' in the State." is located in the case of other banking institutidiis
First This Dnn:1-. .... my luuslvver GGntend_ in . .1 . _ ___ _ rstrued as authorizing merely Z I;-irtdtne act of 1930 should be con-- - 5'9 0 specic assets to see iirePublic deposits; and th t . _b k, _ _ a the giiing of a general lien upon thean s assets is still ultra on-es. The lanou -enough to autho ' - _ _ D age of the Act is broadassets, wherever : :Ek,:'1§:;,§n?zeg§H;?£3i I16}? on Present and futureSuch POWBI; and it should be "iven eilit e laws of ihe State havemain Purpose of the 1930 A,-+ its 4. -1af-?-O nslfuctmn For thetional and State banks; andbvwvivtzil-LIE: R592{l1}'¢:ll.Z.t-I U18 }30'Sltl0Ii Of 118..would not in Georgia be upon an 9ql1&llsi];c92Vll!l'l0:fel:t uhtmlfal banks" 9 an s in com-
l Lewis vs. Fidelity E: Deposit Co. of Maryland.
ieting for deposits. The policy of equalization was adopted in
he National Bank Act of 1864, and has ever since been applied,
n the provision concerning taxation. In amendments to that Act
uid in the Federal Reserve Act and amendments thereto the policy
s expressed in provisions conferring power to establish branches?
n those conferring power to act as duciary ; in those concerning
nterest on deposits ; and in those concerning capitalization. It
uppears also to have been of some inuence in securing the grant
n 1913 of the power to loan on mortgage. Compare Fidelity ch
Deposit Co. v. Kokrda, 66 F. d! 641, 642.
Second- The receiver insists that, even if the Act of 1930 au-
.lO1 lZ ;S the giving of a general lien, the lien here asserted must fail
because there are provisions in the Georgia law inconsistent with
he National Bank Act and because obligations are imposed upon
;tate depositories with which no national bank may comply.
1. Attention is called specically to the terms of the statutory
I1d which is conditioned for the faithful performance of all such
luties as shall be required" of the depository by the General
kssembly or the laws of this State. The argument is that a. na-
ional bank is an instrumentality of the United States and cannot
lubject itself by contract to the laws of a State. But a national
rank is subject to state law unless that law interferes with the
*Acta of June 3, 1864, c. 106, 4541, 13 Stat. 99, 111; Feb. 10, 1868, c. 7,
.5 Stat. 34; R. S. $5219; Mar. 25, 1926, c. 88, 44 Stat. 223. See Van Allen 1;.
tssessors, 3 Wall. 573; Mercantile Bank o. New York, 121 U. S. 138 ; First
lational Bank 1!. Hartford, 273 U. S. 548.
*Acts cf Feb. 25, 192?, c. 191, §7, 44 Stat. 1224, 1228; June 16, I933,
89, §23, 48 Stat. 162, 189. See 36 Op. Atty. Gen. 116, 344.
IActs of Dec. 28, 1913, c. 6, §11 k!, 38 Stat. 251, 262; Sept. 26, 1918,
. 177, § 2, 40 Stat. 967, 968; compare June 16, 1933, c. 89, I! 2-1 a,b!, 48
ltat. 162, 190. See First National Bank 11. Fellows, 244 U. S. 416; Burnes
lational Bank o. Duncan, 265 U. B. 17.
5Acts Feb. 25, 1921, c. 191, gm, 44 Stat. 1224, 1232 to pay no greater
nterest on time and savings deposits than state banks!; and note in par-
icular June 16, 1933, c. 89, §11 b!, 48 Stat. 162, 181 in which national
sinks are forbidden to pay interest on demand deposits except on deposits
if state, county, etc., where state law demands it.
"Act of Feb. 25, 1927, c. 191, §4, 44 Stat. 1224, 1227.
'l'Acts of Dec. 23, 1913, c. 6, §24, 38 Stat. 251 273 see 50 Cong. Rec.
.819; 51 Cong. Rec. 1189!; Sept. 7, 1916, c. 461, 39 Stat. 752, 754 4th
l'ong., 1st Sess., see Report No. 481, p. 14!; Feb. 25, 1927, c. 191, §16,
Y4 Stat. 1224, 1232. See First National Bank o. Anderson, 269 U. S. 341,
I54; First National Bank 1;. Hartford, 273 U. S. 548, 558.Lewis vs. Fidelity d7: Deposit Co. of Marylimd 5
purposes of its creation, or destroys its efficiency, or is in conict
with some paramount federal law. Natimml Bank V. Common-
wealth, 9 Wall. ass, 362; McClellan v. ottoman, 164 U- 8- 347.
356; First National Bank v. Missouri, 263 U. S. 640, 655- W118-13
obligations to the State the bank assumes may be dnfl bf, the
law of that State. It is quite P08811116 that Tho lEgi3l3-W-1'9 might
attempt to impose, under the conditions of the bond, a duty which
the bank would be without authority to undertake; and to that
extent the contract would be unenforceable. But it is not shown
that the obligations as now dened by the courts Of Gergia are
contrary to anything in the National Bank Act. Moreover, the
state court, which would be the controlling authority on the ques-
tion, might decide that the failure of part of the consideration to
be given would not invalidate the appointment.
2. It is urged that acceptance of the appointment as state de-
pository is incompatible with the functions of a national bank,
because under § 224 of the Georgia Code it has been held that the
Governor may issue a eri facios against the depository bank for
the amount due to the State, whereas, Revised Statutes, §5242,
provides that no attachment, injunction or execution, shall be
issued against such association or its property before nal judg-
ment in any suit, action or proceeding, in any state, county or
municipal court. -92ssuming, without deciding, that there is
such conict, it is not material here. Section 224 of the Code pro-
vides merely a method of enforcing the bond which has not been
used here, and hence against which there is at present no occasion
for complaint.
3. It is contended that the lower court erred in its rulings on
the Georgia law; that under the state statutes, properly con-
strued, the lien attaches to all kinds of property from the date of
the bond; that it applies to real estate and other tangible prop-
erty_ to money, bonds, stocks, notes, drafts and other choses in
action then owned or thereafter acquired by the bank, and that it
is not defeated even by a bone fide sale or other disposition of such
property in the ordinary course of business; that, consequently,
the general lien would present an insuperable obstacle to the banks
serving the public in its ordinary business operations; that the
bank could not sell the property it was authorized to acquire, for
no one would take it subject to the lien; that the general lien
ma of March 3, 1e13, c. see, s2, 17 sun. cos; R. s. @5242. "K
6 Lew-is VS. Fidelity di Deposit Co. of Maryland.
'°9211d Prevent the pledge of specic bonds or other securities re-
quired in order to secure the deposits of the United States and
1:-*131"l1 agencies pursuant to provisions of the National Bank Act
B5 a"_"11d*3d;' and that it would prevent the pledge of specic
security required to authorize the issue of circulating notes. - The
lower court took judicial notice of the fact that for more than half
8 century the general lien described has been in force, and has
not interfered with the performance by banks of their duties
to the public; and that national banks while serving as depogi.
tones have not, so far as appeals, ever been confronted with a
conict between their duties to the State and to the United
States. The reasons given by that court for its conclusions as to
the operation and effect of the lien under the law of Georgia are
set forth fully and persuasively in the opinion of the Circuit
Court of Appeals. We cannot say that it erred in the conclusions
reached either as to the state law, or as to the facts. Compare
City of ilicrios v. Srieedeo, 291 U. S. 262, 270-271.
. 4. The receiver contends that the lien, if limited in its opera-
tion upon commercial assets to such moneys, stocks, bonds, notes,
drafts and other choses in action as are captured by a receivership,
is not a true security at all; that if so limited the alleged lien
would, in the event of insolvency, be legally a preference; that to
give it effect would conict with the policy expressed in §50 of
the National Bank Act which forbids preferences made in view
of insolvency; and that Congress cannot be assumed to have sanc-
tioned a transaction which though in form a security is in essence
a preference.
Sections 50 and 52 do not prohibit liens given prior to in-
solvency and not in contemplation thereof, whether they arise from
express agreements, or are implied from the nature of the dealingsbetween parties, or arise by operation of law. Scott v. Armstrong,146 U. S. 499, 510; Earle v. Pennsylvamia, 178 U. S, 449, 454_
The hen here asserted arises out of an agreement executed at a time
when t-here was no question of insolvency; nor is it restricted in its
operation to the event of insolvency. It may be exercised by execu-
tion or otherwise whenever the bank refuses to pay. It resembles
the lien which is enforced when seizure is made by the creditor
vim of June 3, 1864, c. 106, sis, 13 Stat. 99, 113. 1
10Act of March 14, 1900, c. 41, s 12, 31 Stilt. 45, 49_
1lAcl of June 3, 1864, c. 106, §50, 13 stat 99 114. R q §5236' 9 , . n . ,Lewis vs. Fidelity fa Deposit Go. of Maryland. 7
within four months of bankruptcy, of property claimed under
an after-acquired property clause of a mortgage; Thompson v.
Fairbanks, 196 U. S. 515; Humphrey v. Tetmun, 198 U. S. 91."
It resembles also those cases where, under the common law of dis-
tress or under a statutory lien, described by the courts as in-
choate or dormant , a landlord, within four months of bank-
ruptcy, seizing or levying upon whatever property was on the ten-
ants premises, was held to have a valid lien. Henderson v. Mayer,
225 U. S. 631 ; Richmond v. Bird, 249 U. S. 174. Compare Minnich
v. Gardner, No. 659, decided April 2, 1934. The case at oar is
unlike Dov-is v. Elmira Savings Bo/nk, 161 U. S. 275, relied upon
by the receiver, where a New York statute dealing with the ad-
ministration of insolvent banks provided that in the event of in-
olvency the deposits of a savings bank would be entitled to a
preference.
5. The receiver contends that, under a proper interpretation of
the state depository statute, no lien whatever is intended or arises
when a national bank gives a bond to secure state deposits, because
the bond required of a national bank is more onerous than that
required of a state bank.
The bond of the national bank must be double the amount of
the deposit; of the state bank only equal to it. The lien is secur-
ity for the bond, not the deposit; thus in the ease of a national
bank, if the provision were appiicabie, the lien would be twice the
amount of the deposit. As the court below noted, the double bond
may have been thought necessary because the State has not the
power to examine national banks. But whatever the occasion for
the difference, it does not appear to conict with or cloud the clear
statement of the statute attaching the lien to depository bonds as
such and without qualications. The ultimate decision of this
question is for the Supreme Court of Georgia but until it decides
otherwise we see no reason for not accepting the holding of the
court below as correct.
Tiiircl. The receiver contends that even if national banks are
authorized under the 1930 Act to give a general lien upon their
assets of the character described by the Circuit Court of Appeals,
the judgment should be reversed because the bond antedated the
"Coniparc In re Ball, 123 Fcdi164; Inr:I;"i;e,rs, 132 Fed. 560; Wood 11.
United States Fidelity, etc. Co., 143 Fed. 424; In re Glover Specialities Co.,
18 F. d! 314; In re Riggi Bros. Co., 42 F. d! 174.
- ' 1
7,->_ V _1__,_ _ --» ,_; _ 92~_ .,.¢ -,.92;i:, .~-1.-pi, -,3._§_.- '_... _- /_-i.92'_.q- _. .____,--.- _-,92-_ _ ~-. - n-» .. '1--3::-at-. -- .-.1 3. --"&*'--'..t-3- -;._.,,,;-..'._.-_:-;":_.:r,; '~§§,__~ =-.-....1...' Mr""' ' . ~».'¢S.¥'11*.= -1Z;~'-Y- . ' *4 - _;_,._;_->Q92*.:,fI,,"_'|,X-"' l 1-bl-IW-1 -
L.-..-_92;V
....-.2
-~_~. ~.»- - ._,, . '»:¥-'- ; .1.1-;'-"--'1a"'.-*-_';._',<?";>;, .: i',§-3'~.<~r-1: "J.-. '*.5?2.*- 1 - . : *|= '-'+1. .1 "
F.
4-... -
.41 -'r-.92- -$<.
:_..-,.--- .,'-J ', -"?" . -=alI~H92-_-inru
.-1. -..;;,,,,,.-_ _' <p~ as _-~,.-.
. ._._,_ _._ -'...,,,_ 3:.-»..,_, »_. _,. ____, ._.. . ... x. .._-._; ..
, .. .~e
,..a_.'..1_3ir'_192-.l.92.~..-~;-._--:=. .. -,.= "
..- ... »..,~__..~- . ..~_-_-1-e_ _
- |'.;»--.*"--.- -. --" ~ --s; - ~ , . -'. . _ 1 m
fr" ~*- _ 92/""-1 iv ._..~*-tn k
.
. . ._ *--.7.-<_r _ 92- --V ll:-Jill
..1-.rr*-.%~ "If . __ .. .'-_._ .1;
1.. _ . _ 1
-'1» '-¥~-- . ... :."_.-M _§_4{.§fa.e V _ ..
r92n-Javrv , _- -1_ -. --'~ I .l '1 ' 7.-. -,. r. '-
e G2. 1 --
& ':.i"". "
Ir.._"_. : ._.. ,-
I ',..1":-2-.=t-'*s&-+; : __ _ ark?- "er,-».. .._. ." eé-=~:~?*.,. '7 '§
" ..-r"""** 1_,c|._._,/ 'i___$._-- -
-4 ;.'a::.'~,=' 351;
w v _ .-_-,~~ _..,__' ;V V-, .. =_ :,_¢"--__,- k an "".1.-u-in.-duau--.5»-.-.._<...~92n~-»92-v------i4 L45 ..,.,,...,.,¢,,__,;-pp. -pi-....-In-a-¢1_1-cause --u -a -4|-.1-92 .--u. _. - -
8 Lewis vs. Fidelity d: Deposit Co. of Maryland. '
Act. It appears that the balance on hand June 25, 1930, was With-
drawn soon thereafter; that between June 25, 1930 and the ap-
pointment of the receiver, May 23, 1932, deposits were regularly
made aggregating a large sum; that from time to time checks were
drawn against these deposits; and that all of the balance in bank
when the receiver was appointed represented deposits made after
the passage of the Act." The appointment of the bank as de-
pository in 1928 and the bond were to cover a period of four years.
Though the lien was in form security for the bond, the extent of
liability was to be measured by the unpaid balance. Thus, the
transaction was not completed i_n 1928; it was contemplated that
there would be continuous dealings between the parties for four
years. In fact, the relation continued until the appointment of
the receiver. Throughout the whole period the parties intended
that the lien should be operative and supposed that it was. The
appointment was within the power of the State to confer and of
the hank to accept, but by reason of the paramount federal law
one of the anticipated incidents of the relation, the lien, could not
arise. When that obstacle was removed by the Act of June 25,
1930, the original agreement could as to the future be given the
eect intended by the parties-, and the lien became operative as
to deposits thereafter made and is entitled to priority from the date
of the Act. A statute is not retroactive merely because it draws
hh Hhinnrlnnf Far-+2 Fnr ite nnnr-nfinn lnmnnrn lnnr tr I-Tar! !R--1~-- ----nu- ts... L04-IL-I .-. . H. v1_,92..-.92..v~u 92/van;-11.. vvw v. AA ! 1 n-¢92a92.I
U. S. 427, 435; Ewell V. Doggs, 103 U. S. 143; Patterson V. Berry,
125 Fed. 902; Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Chicago, M. d: St. P.
Ry. Co, 62 Fed. 90-1, 910; Rosenplanfer v. Provident Savings etc.
Soe., 96 Fed. 721. It was not necessary to go through the form of
executing a new bond. Compare Jones v. Guaranty and Indemnity
Co., 101 U. S. 622, 627. We have no occasion to consider whether the
Act of June 25, 1930, would have validated the lien also in respect
to deposits made before that date. Compare Gross V. United States
Mortgage Co., 108 U. S. H7, 458; West Side Belt R. R. v. Pitta
burg Construction C0., 219 U. S. 92; Charlotte Harbor d? North-
ern Ry v. Welles, 260 U. S. 8.
Airmed.
The facts concerning the dates of the deposits and the amounts were sup-
plied by counsel for the Comptroller of the Currency who joined with counlol
for petitioners in briefs and argument.
1
' .;?:-- i -. -Q-_- . - ~" ~ --.. 51 3., ' -:92 --, _ --- 1, --:' "aw . ' 1.. -L -q92,"_ I -"h
T, ea ..°'- '1? .-3?.1 H :.__ I . X. 92r 4_.< jg.'7' 410?" -1 A
_i__ ,- . A __"' .'_ '* ~.< _
...»-.._ ,__~; 3,; .'- i n~:;:_., V:
.... _..r _ _ .__¢
~_Q..'lI>92Il-Y___ _ I," s -- - .1». »,--.e.-r -...».. .. __ '.. i ';_ __.t' _ _. ' V » -,; I--_»=.>~--* .- -,<__§_*-3" .__'.:-_-,--_-- ,
-:-. ~= - .~.'~r., <,~» _- -- _
;~_,_=._. .....-- .._ M- ._.._,...a 1.4 . M... .....i.. __ -' 2"": . __ " 1 um '1 '~ "1 .._, . 5 . ._., . . _ J;
-F?-- --* *-~';':". ~ ' "I -- -'_ 1'.-;-wv.='-, 1.... . . ''7-F 'y--- -r"-n ¢ .. - - . , »; sap-_ _ . " , 92 ;, '. -. .,-. z-. .. ._.7 . .-. -, . 92 -
;..-_-_. ...J.._q.._'_;. "-~.s__ti, .. . _-{<5 .. .=c.3- ; . --A ' E '..r _ -_;.
._.~-.1-'.»_ ~, _'.'-~".'¬" **"'e' "5: ii"V Hy! 1' .. C - i i - k
lvr.- s I :;_.. .-5",-I-ii-E :-.:_,'-.:..»:-.l+~i4§.'s:s'#,_@~;'?.-_3.1bI.' e .__:.-1 ~,_ _-,_-V J: . " ->:_~:<;Prw=~._._ . _a»- . ..
- __ . . _.. __. .. .:.,,,,;____ .._
' ' n- -. ~. ' - --. _ ~ _. . ..1 . _ . -. . "_
92 p. 92B ' .... '
,3!" .1-J; ,_:.1::;::-_. ..x'='I~'-_ r-"L-~._.-4 ~_ ___, -A 3; ¢92.~.o- __.v-.¢,-e-__ ., - A ' .' _,._- ii;_ _ ._ . e -- . :1 . --v . -a e '=.- 71-Av - Tn_f=Z6-K'--£~".i", - "'r:¢~ .=5$-1'11.
- "" '._-iii-I- ' 'L.'.'.??-'IZ'f."""
' - -- ia" -T "-E-a1'-'- .-"'3? *- T 1 '..- -1. . - -- .- s--a~- ":1",... _-... . -- .¢~:=~:;" ---- L."- -» -~ -.:
.-;-'-Ir"-'. "'- "rm; f :_.'..-.-= ';.:-2.~:*;.;T-'-;:;.', -5,, .l
Ll? -, _::- ' J-F - "L ~ir;~-. 5-rni- -.a..4_o'v' _ ,
' --uni_ ¢,_,__ . . .¢__...-._...__. .-__._a _ . 4 ... .. -
2 Texas ct oi. VB. The United States at cl.
laws of Texas, which conne to Texas corporations the right to
own or maintain any railways within the State, which require
every railroad company chartered by the State to keep and main-
tain permanently its general oices within this State at the place
named in its charter", and at that place also to maintain the
oices of its principal officers, and which prohibit any railroad
company from changing the location of its general ofces, ma-
chine shops, or roundhouses, save with the consent and approval
of the Railroad Commission of the State.
belonging to the Tcxarlrana Company, and to relocate the same, and, from
"ime to time, to change the same, during the full term of this lease, and shall
lave the right to make all such locations, changes and alterations as in the
judgment of the Southern Company will enable it to operate the demised
premises in the public interest and with the greatest economy and eiciency;
and the Southern Company shall not be obligated or bound to perform any
contractual, statutory or other obligations with reference to such matters
which may now or hereafter rest upon the Texarkana. Company; and any
and all such changes may be made, from time to time, by the Southern Com-
pany as may be approved by the judgment of its ocera or Board of
Directors .
I'Ihess provisions of the Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, are as
follows:
Art. 6260. No corporation, except one chartered under the laws of Texas,
shall be authorized or permitted to construct, build, operate, acquire, own or
maintain any railways within State .
Art. 6275. "Every railroad company chartered by this State, or owning
or operating any line of railway within this State, shall keep and maintain
permanently its general oices within this State at the place named in its
charter for the location of its general ofces. It no certain place in named
n its charter where its general oices shall be located and maintained, then
said railroad company shall keep and maintain its general oioes at such place
within this State where it contracts or agrees to locate its general olee for a
valuable consideration".
Art. 6278. "Railroad companies shall keep and maintain at the place
within this State where its general oices are located the olce oi! its presi-
dent, or vice-president, secretary, treasurer, local treasurer, auditor, general
freight agent, trafc manager, general manager, general superintendent, gen-
eral paasenger and ticket agent, chief engineer, superintendent of motive power
and machinery, master mechanic, master of transportation, fuel agent, genera-l
claim agent; and each one of its general oiees shall be so kept and main-
tained by whatever name it is known, and the persons who perform the dutiea
of said general oices, by whatever name known, shall keep and maintain their
oices at the place where said general offices are required to be located and
maintained; and the persona holding said general oieos shall reside at thei
l
|Texas at al. VS. The United States at cl. 3
The Interstate Commerce Commission was divided in opinion.
Upon a prior hearing, the Commission approved the lease upon the
condition that the paragraph in controversy should be eliminated.
Report and order of December 27, 1932; 189 I. C. C. 253. Follow-
ing the enactment of the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act,
1933 Act of June 16, 1933, c. 91!, the proceeding was reopened
and, after hearing, the Commission modied its order by striking
out the above-mentioned condition, thus approving and authoriz-
ing the lease with its provision, in Section 5, as to ofces and shops.
The ndings of fact set forth in the Commission s report are not
contested. The lines which constitute what is called the Kansas
City Southern Railway system embracing the portions covered by
thrrproposed lease! extend from Kansas City, Missouri, to Port
Arthur, Texas over 800 miles!. The line of the Kansas City
Southern Railway Company, the applicant, extends from Kansas
City, Missouri, to Mona, Arkansas. The line of the Texarkana &
Fort Smith Railway Company is in two segments. The northern
segment extends from Mena in a southerly direction, crosses the
Arkansas-Texas State line, and runs through Texarkana and thence
southeasterly into Arkansas and to the Arkansas-Louisiana State
line. The portions of this segment in Arkansas are operated by
the applicant under a lease previously authorized by the Inter-
state Commeree Commission. 105 I. C. C. 523. The portion of
the northern segment which lies in the State of Texas, is approxi-
mately 31 miles in length. The southern segment of the Texarkana
& Fort Smith Railway extends from the Louisiana-Texas State
line at the Sabine River to Port Arthur, Texas, and is approxi-
mately 50 miles in length. Thus, the total main line mileage of
the Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway in Texas is 81 miles; there
are about 18 miles of branch lines. The portion of the railroad
system lying between the Arkansas-Louisiana State line and the
Louisiana-Texas State line, approximately 228 miles, is owned by
the Kansas City, Shreveport & Gulf Railroad Company, a sub-
sidiary of the applicant.
place and keep and maintain their offices at the place where said general
offices are required by law to be kept and maintained. . . .
Art. 6286. No railroad company shall change the location of its general
olces, machine shops or roundhouses, save with the consent and approval of
the Railroad Commission 01' Texas, and this shall apply also to receivers and
to purchasers of the franchises and properties of railroad companies and to
new corporations formed by such purchasers or their assigns. . . ."
4 Texas at a1. vs. The United States at al.
The Commission, on the rst hearing, found that the consumma-
tion of the plan presented by the applicant would result in an an-
nual saving, under normal conditions, of about $81,000. This nd-
ing was repeated in the nal report. The estimated saving would
result from the unication of operations, the discontinuance of
general oices of the Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company
at Texarkana, and the removal to Shreveport and Kansas City of
many of the activities at Texarkana which caused duplication of
work. Thus, under the proposed plan, the audit0rs and treas-
urers departments of the Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Com-
pany would be transferred to the applicants headquarters at
Kansas City, with an estimated annual saving of over $57,000.
The oices of the general freight agent, general passenger agent,
superintendent, and division engineer, and of the master mechanic
at Port Arthur, would be removed to Shreveport and consolidated
with similar oices of the applicant, at an estimated annual saving
of over $21,000. There would also be a decrease in expenses for
various services in connection with the building at Texarkana.
Shreveport, said the Commission, is considered to be more cen-
trally Iocated from an operating standpoint than Texarkana, and
there are at that point the applicant's main terminal for the
southern territory, shops for heavy repairs, more industry, greater
population, and more railroad connections.
The Commission found that for the four years, 1928-1931, the
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company handled an average of
993,622 tons of intrastate tratc and 3,405,944 tons of interstate
traic. Of the average total of 4,399,566 tons, the applicant par-
ticipated in the handling of 3,192,554 tons. The net income of the
Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company amounted to $441,922
in 1926, $204,052 in 1927, $437,270 in 1928, $598,172 in 1929, and
$95,655 in 1930. In 1931 there appears to have been no net in-
come. The Commission concluded that in view of the volume
of interstate traffic handled by the T. & F. S. and the net income
earned by that carrier, it is clear that the expenditure of approxi-
mately $81,000 a year, which will be unnecessary under the plan
that the applicant proposes to put into ccct under the lease, con-
stitutes an undue burden upon interstate commerce.
The Commission further found that the lease by the Kansas
City Southern Railway Company of the railroad and properties
of the Texarkana & Fort Smith Railway Company, located in92
Texas at al. vs. The United States at al. 5
Texas and elsewhere not now under lease, in accordance with the
0 osed lease will be in harmony with and in furtherance of theiilaiil for the cimsolidation of railroad properties heretofore estab-$7lislied by us and will promote the public interest.
The State of Texas raises no question as to the constitutional
power of the Congress to confer authority upon the Commission
to approve the proposed lease with the stiP"1l3-l~l°n5 lmder °_7'n'
Side;-at,i !n_ The question is simply as to the scope of the authority
which has been conferred,-the construction of the applicable stale
utory provisions. These are found in Section 5 of the InterstateCommerce Act as amended by the Emergency Ra1lI'0]?d :!I'8£l;$!'
portation Act, 1933 Title II, secs. 201, 202!. Paragrap B
1' d ! b! of that section make it lawful. with the PP1'°V3l and an
authorization of the Commission, for two 01' more carriers to con-
solidate or merge their properties; or for any carrier . . .
to purchase, lease, or contract to operate the properties, or any Part
thereof, of another , or to acquire control of another througll PUT
chase of its stock. On application to the Commission for such all-
proval, appropriate notice of public hearing must be Eli?" l° the
Governor of each State in which any part of the Pl'°Pel°ll95 °f the
carriers involved is situated, as well as to the carriers thmlvel
If after hearing, the Commission nds that, subject to such terms
and conditions and such modications as it shall nd to be Just
and reasonable, the proposed consolidation, merger, purchase, lease,
operating contract, or acquisition of control will be in harmony
with and in furtherance of the plan for the consolidation of rail-
way properties established pursuant to paragraph !_, B-rid Wlll
promote the public interest", the Commission may give its ap-
proval and authorization accordingly. _
These broadening provisions of the Emergency Railroad Trails-
portation Act, 1933, conrm and carryllorward the purposerwhiicli
3'lhe full text of paragraphs ! B! 81111 ! bl ll U {°ll° '5=
it ! !, It shall be lawful, with the approval and authorization of the
Commission, as provided in subdivision h!, for two or more carriers to con-solidate or merge their pi-opertie, or any part thereof, into one c01'P019-E19
for the ownership, management, and operation of the properties thereto ore
in separate ownership; or for any carrier, or two or more cffler J°"lll}i l°
ui-clriiie lease, or contract to operate ill PT"Pl 'l1°5» °l' any part lllelmfll ' i ' , . . -of another; or for any carrier, or two or more carriers J01"ll§'i t° 9-tilts":
t w ic control of another through purchase of its stock; or for a ¢llP°l'a ll!
led to the enactment of Transportation Act, 1920, Title IV, 41
Stat. 474, ei seq.!. '2 found that Transportation Act, 1920, in-
troduced into the federal legislation a new railroad policy, seeking
to insure an adequate transportation service. To attain that end,
new rights, new obligations, new machinery, were created. Rail-
road Comnulssion of llisro'nsin v. Chicago, Burlington tfr Quincy
R. R. Co., 257 U. S. 563, 585; New England Divisions case, 261
U. S. I84, I89, 190; Dayton-Goose Creek Railway Co. v. United
States, 263 U. S. 456, 478. It is a primary aim of that policy to
iecure the avoidance of waste. That avoidance, as well as the
maintenance of service, is viewed as a direct concern of the public.
Davis v. Farmers Co-opera-five 00., 262 U. S. 312, 317; Texas at
Pacic Boilioo-3,1 Co. v. Gulf, Colorado -2 Sonic Fe Ea-i-Ii-so-y Co.,
270 U. S. 266, 277. The authority given to the Commission to
authorize consolidations, purchases, leases, operating contracts, and
acquisition of control, was given in aid of that policy. New York
Central Securities Corporation v. United States, 287 U. S. 12, 24,Tor-as et cl-. vs. The United States at cl. 7
as used in the statute is not a mere general reference to public
welfare, but, as shown by the context and purpose of the Act, "has
direct relation to adequacy of transportation service, to its essen-
tial conditions of economy and efficiency, and to appropriate pro-
vision and best use of transportation facilities". New York Cen-
tral Securities Corpora-tiwi V. United States, supra.
It is in the light of this criterion that we must consider the
scope of the Commissions authority in relation to provisions which
are intended to relieve interstate carriers from burdensome outlays.
The fact that burdensome expenditures may be required by state
regulations is not a barrier to their removal by dominant federal
authority in the protection of interstate commerce. As we said in
Colorado v. United States, 271 U. S. 153, 163: Prejudice to inter-
state commerce may be effected in many ways. One way is by
excessive expenditures from the common fund in the local interest,
thereby lessening the ability of the carrier properly to serve inter-
state commerce". Even explicit charter provisions must yield
8 Texas et oi. Vs. The United States at al.
spection by the stockholders of such corporations, books, in which
shall be recorded the amount of capital stock subscribed, the names
of stockholders, etc., and transfers, the amount of its assets and
liabilities, and the names and places of residence of its officers.
See, also, Art. 4115, Texas Revised Statutes, 1879; Laws of Texas,
1885, c. 63; Arts. 1358, £i.?3I, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925.
Counsel for the United States and for the Interstate Commerce
Commission urge that the Oicc-Shops Act", here involved, was
' acted independently of the above statutes. Iiaws of Texas, 1889,
106; Art. 6275, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925. Accord-
ingly, they insist that the order of the Commission and the lease
in question apply to the general offices", shops, etc., and not to
the public oice of the domestic corporation. Counsel for the
applicant, the Kansas City Southern Railway Company, submits
that the lease by necessary implication requires the Texarkana &
Fort Smith Railway Company to maintain its principal oice in
Texas as the Texas statute requires. See as to service of process,
Art. 2029, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925. In view of the
disclaimer on behalf of the United States and the Interstate Com-
merce Commission, and the interpretation placed upon the pro-
vision in the lease, we assume that the question before us merely
relates to the abandonment or removal of "general olces", shops,
etc., as distinguished from the public oice required by the
Texas statutes, that is, to those transportation facilities the con-
- cued maintenance of which, in the circumstances described by
e ndings of the Commission, would entail unnecessary and bur-
densome expenditures in operation. As thus construed, we nd no
ground for concluding that the approval of the provision in the
lease was beyond the Commissions authority. There is no inter-
ference with the supervision of the State over the lessor in matters
essentially of state concern, as distinguished from the operations
which in their effect upon interstate commerce are of national
concern.
The State invokes Section 11 of Title I of the Emergency Rail-
road Transportation Act, 1933, which provides that Nothing in
this title shall be construed to relieve any carrier from any con-
tractual obligation which it may have assumed, prior to the enact-
ment of this Act, with regard to the location or maintenance ofoffices, shops, or roundhouses at any point". But that section
refers explicitly to what is contained in Title I of the Act, with
respect to emergency powers , dealing with the authority of the
Federal Coordinator of Transportation and kindred matters, and
does not by its terms apply to the provisions of Title II of the
Act, in which are found the amendments of Section 5 of the Inter-
state Commerce Act with respect to the approval and authoriza-
tion by the Interstatc Commerce Commission of consolidations,
purchases and leases. And Section 11 of Title I relates to con-
tractual obligations assumed by the carrier and does not aptly
refer to obligations imposed by statute. The insertion of the pro-
vision in Title I, with its restricted application, and the omission
of asimilar provision from Title II, indicate an intentional dis-
tinction.
Title II of the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act, 1933,
in amending Section 5 of the Interstate Commerce Act, carries its
own provision as to immunity from tate requirements which
would stand in the way of the execution of the policy of the Con-
gress through the Commissions orders. Subdivision 5! of Sec-
tion 5 as amended, reads?
The carriers and any corporation aected by any order under
the foregoing provisions of this section shall be, and they are
hereby, relieved from the operation of the antitrust laws as desig-
nated in section 1 of the Act entitled An Act to supplement exist-
ing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other
purposes, approved October 15, 1914, and of all other restraints
or prohibitions by or imposed under authority of law, State or
Federal, insofar as may be necessary to enable them to'do any-
thing authorized or required by such order .
The view that, by reference to the context, this immimity should
be regarded as limited to those restraints or prohibitions by or
imposed under authority of law which fall within the general
description of anti-trust legislation, is too narrow. The rule
of ejusdem generis is applied as an aid in ascertaining the in-
tention of the legislature, not to subvert it when ascertained.
Mid-Northern Oil Company v. Montana, 268 U. S. 45, 49. The.1 1 _ 4.1 an 1 I _1 I!16208 81 11$. VS. IGG B30383 BF B45. V
10 Texas at al. vs. The United States et at.
Congress had in view and had constitutional power to accomplish.
As that purpose involved the promotion of economy and eiciency
in interstate transportation by the removal of the burdens of ex?
cessive expenditure, the removal of such burdens when imposed
by state requirements was an emential part of tl1e plan. The State
urges that in the course of the passage of Transportation Act,
1920, a provision for federal incorporation of railroads was struck
out. But while railroad corporations were left under state
charters, they were still instrumentalities of interstate commerce,
"id, as such, were subjat-ed to the paramount federal obligation
render the eicient and economical service required in the main-
tenance of an adequate system of interstate transportation.
Colorado v. United States, supra. _
The decision in I-nternational 4'3 Great Northern Railway Co. v.
Anderson County, 246 U. S. 424, is not opposed. Apart from the
fact that in that case the state court had found, upon the verdict
of a jury, that the maintenance of the oees and shops at the place
at which the predecessor of the plainti in error had contracted
to maintain them, did not impose a burden upon interstate com-
mercea nding which this Court found no reason to disturb
Id., pp. 433, 434!the case arose prior to the enactment of
Transportation Act, 1920, and the question here presented was
not involved.
m1.- :rA-..-_ J:__.:__:.._. - A ,,A_A1_s,,1 -, ,m , -9211:8 UBCIEC QLBIHIHSUI Omplll 15 Bl11IIl16Cl.
Decree airmed.
A true copy.
Clerk, Supreme O0-art, U. S.° 0
~ .... . * -.~ ~ -92=--- -3-.1-r-92~----- . . ..~ t. _..._92». _ . *1 -'.'._ .'_»-;' 1' ... _ "'1'? _ _ i; ___ Q A it $3 » nii! " - -"' r_-1-= ~ -. ~-"' " _ .._'.~.- A. ;, st -.i.___, . ~"- L-ir" - _" '1? -_~ qr-.. ."k'."" 1
" "r A - . .=' -t ._ ..,; . . --- ~g-- "-~ ~ - '. . - ab. ~i -. --'-2 '--W----w.-I-=5=-_-,.- . - .4--.~ *2- __ - , 1 K .,
P __ __ ,1 _ ',._.-. -vs I-~ "._'.=-~92 "
. . ., .,....,.-;_-._,~..._..---
9 "Hi . 1
_. 7 '_,' - r - -a.
92 r ' r ' - -1-é.'i'=. T . . -_ ._, __ _
- ..r.92_.___'-.¢"- Q:-1-3-92_-*4 -
3"-$r.r '- -.. »-L _ 92 --
1. -1-r.
' ~ -'..<;..e.-
_ r
ré - .
__ _. __,., - . "-*.l'e=!*-___l .£.-,~~~ e , ; _,,_i- _.
P.
~
._ __-5-_-A-*--_ ',-j
.;_- !_ _!..-<~.'~ 5r__.;:-331; .15-if-.": '- "5.-5*:
.1 _ Q- 14 ' '_ '- . -it i-3:-1...Y4?!-_' 2- -L *-= - -o_ --
**'7'- - " ' 1' I.-Y "' I ."-._... .;a......; _ .'".",- ._- 1
- Am... - -- --- -if _ _ '__~'i'r 5 " 92;;./
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.
No. 820.Oc'roonn Tram, 1933.
The Fairport, Peinesville & Eastern On Writ of Certiorari to
Railroad Company, Petitioner, the Court of Appeals,
vs. Seventh Judicial District
Mayme F. Meredith. of the State of Ohio.
{June 4, 1934.]
Mr. Justice Surnnnnnun delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent recovered judgment against petitioner upon the ver-
diet of a jury in an Ohio state court of rst instance for a per-
sonal injury resulting from a collision at a railroad-highway cross-
ing between an automobile which she was driving and a. train of
cars operated by petitioner over its line of railroad. There is
evidence that the train approached the crossing without sounding
the whistle of the engine or ringing the bell so as to give warning
of the trains approach. There is also evidence which fairly estab-
lishes that as respondent drew near the crossing the train was in
plain view for a suicicnt length of time to have enabled respond-
ent, by the use of ordinary care, to see the train, stop and avoid
the collision, and, therefore, that she was guilty of contributory
negligence. Miller v. U men Pacic R. 00., 290 U. S. 227, 281. The
train was equipped with air brakes, in conformity with the federal
Safety Appliance Act, as amended, U. S. C., Title 45, c. 1, §§ 1 and
9, and the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission made
1Seetion 1. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in inter-
state commerce by railroad to use on its line any locomotive engine in moving
interstate traiiic not equipped with :1 power driving-wheel brake and appliances
for operating the train-brake system, or to run any train in such traic that
has not a sufficient number of cars in it so equipped with power or train
brakes that the engineer on the locomotive drawing such train can control
its speed without requiring brakemen to use the common hand brake for that
purpose.
Section 9. Whenever, as provided in this chapter, any train is operated
with power or train brakes not less than 50 per centum of the cars in such
train shall have their brakes used and operated by the engineer of the loco-
motive drawing such train; and all power-braked cars in such train which
27:}-*_/.. /in I -
2 Fairport, Painesuilte di Eastern R. R. C0. vs. Meredith.
thereunder; but the air was disconnected between the cars and the
engine, leaving the brakes of the engine and tender as the only
iU92!92l92W92l1 n-I l'I I92I'92I'|':I'92l'I -I>1'92|92 4-nin rnl rghxnnlringp -if-u chant] I'|'92r1G 0 P1-Jlltilllh UL nluppllla but Lllll U1 92..nuur921llD Au: nyumnn, l.|Al92-A»: v U 1
tuting a clear violation of the act, since the requirement tha
train shall be equipped with power brakes necessarily contemplates
that they shall be maintained for use. See United States v. Greet
Northern Ry. C'o., 229 Fed. 927. 930.
The complaint alleges, as one ground of negligence, failure on the
part of petitioner to make an air connection between the engine
and ears, and to maintain and use the power brakes. In respect
of that ground of negligence the trial court instructed the jury,
'n effect, that if the violation of the federal act resulted proxi-
mately or immediately in the injury complained of, the railroad
company was liable. But the jury was also told that if respondent
was guilty of contributory negligence she could not recover not-
withstanding the negligence of petitioner. The trial court also in-
structed the jury in respect of the doctrine of the last clear chance
-its view apparently being that, notwithstanding the contribu-
tory negligence of respondent, petitioner would be liable ii', after
the danger to respondent became apparent, it could have avoided
the injury but for its antecedent failure to maintain and use an
equipment of air brakes such as required by the federal act.
' The appellate court, in sustaining the judgment of the trial
court, held: ! that the federal law violated by petitioner was en-
acted not only for the protection of railroad cmployes and passen-
gers on railroad trains, but the public generalIythat is to say.
as applied to the present ease, that the requirement of the federal
Safety Appliance Act as to power controlled brakes and their use
imposed a duty upon the railroad company in respect of travelers
at railroad-highway crossings; an l ! that the instructions of
the trial court in respect of the doctrine of the last clear chance
correctly stated the iaw. -- Ohio App. -.
are associated together with said 50 per centum shall have their brakes so
used and opL'I':itcd; und, to more fully curry into effect the objects of uid
elulptr.-r, the Interstate onuncrcn Commission may, from time to time, after
full hearing, increase the minilnurn percentage of cars in any trnin required
to be operated with power or train brakes which must have their brakes used
arid Opt-rnlcd as aforesaid; nml :1 tziilurc to comply with any such require-
ment of the snid interstate Colninorro Commission shall be subject to the
like penalty as failure to comply with any rcquirciucnt of this scclion.Fairport, Paineseilte dc Eastern R. R. Co. vs. Meredith. 3
These two rulings present the questions which the writ brings
here for consideration.
1~h-st. The contention of petitioner is that the federal Safety
Appliance Act was intended only for the protection of employes
and travelers upon the railroads, and has no relation to the safety
of travelers upon liiglnrays or of the public generally. Very likely,
the primary purpose in the mind of Congress was to protect cm-
pioyes and passengers. So much is indicated by the titlc .r92n
act to promote the sail-ty oi employcs and travelers upon rail-
roads etc. And this is borne out by the history of the legisla-
tion. President Iinrrisou in his first anuxal message to Congress
called attention to the need of legislation for the better protection
of the lives and limls of those engaged in operating the interstate
i'i'eight lines pl the country, and especially the yard mcu and
brakelnon, and -xiiwssesl the view that Congress had power to re-
quire unii'o1'niity in the cmistruction of cars used in interstate
izoinnaerco and the use oi i1iIjllii'92'i i safety appliances upon them.
lint we are nsiuul to hold that the title [".92I[!lL'SSS the sole intent
of the act, and this involves :1 question of Statut0l'! construction.
The title ol' an actf. and the Iiistory leading up to its adoption, as
aids to statutory construction, are to be resorted to only for the
purpose of resolving doubts as to the meaning of the words used
in the act in case of ambiguity. Patterson Y. Bari Eiuiorn, 190
U. 1 i..l, 1'22; Cogrnrll v. .7o_i,me, 192 U. 418, 430; Le,r.n'nc- v.
llii'li'anzs, 232 U. S,_ 78, Compare Russell Co. V. United States,
261 ll. R. 514, 519,522. But here the words of §§ 1 and 9 of the
act speak plainly and nothing in the nature or operation of
the legislation requires, or siiggests the necessity of, an appeal to
e.92:trinsic aids to determine their meaning. It may be that the pro-
tective operation of §2 of the act requiring aptomatic couplers
was not meant to extend to persons other than employes. om-
parc St. L. d" Non Fran. R. R. V. Conarty, 238 U. S. 243; L0tti.s'tiil6
Lt Nashville R. It, '0. V. Lfl_lji !lt, 243 U. S. 617, 620; Lang V. New
York Cent. R. R. Co., Z55 U. S. 455; Davis v. lV0lfe, 263 U. S. 239,
243- Ph'iladeIph1'e d R Ru 0 v Eisenhurt 280 Fed 271. But , . _ . . _ . J .
'-Section 2. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in inter-
state eonuuercc by railroad to hnul or permit to be hauled or used on its
line any car used in moving interstate trnfiic not equipped with couplers
coupling riutouuiticaliy by inipnrt, and which can be uncoupled without the
necessity of mcn going between the ends of the cars.
4 Fairport, Painewillc cf: Eastern R. R. Co. vs. Meredith.
the installation and use of power brakes required by §§ 1 and § so
obviously contribute to the safety of the traveler at crossings that
it is hardly probable that Congress could have contemplated their
inapplicability to that situation.
Section 9, supra, provides that when a train is operated with
power or train brakes, not less than 50 per cent. under regulation
of the Interstate Commerce Commission now 85 per cent.! of the
nu-.-. 3-. anal 4- I ls Tl Lav {I- sir Ix:-alrnn near ant nnovafed ulna LLI. nuu ucun Suu u 3% unis u nun ww-1 we 92-y92-A v
the engineer of the locomotive drawing the train. That a train so
equipped and operated can be brought to a stop much more quickly
han by the use of hand brakes is, of course, perfectly clear; and it
is reasonable to conclude that a result so readily perceivable lies
within the purview of the requirement. The most important pur-
pose of a brake upon any vehicle is to enable its operator to check
its speed or stop it more quickly than would otherwise be possible.
The old railway hand brake was principally for that purpose, but
it was undesirable for two reasons-rst, because in setting it the
hrakcman was exposed to danger, and second, and especially in
the case of long heavy trains, it did net meet the necessity ct
stopping the train quickly in emergencies. In this second aspect,
the common law duty of the railway company to use ordinary care
to provide and keep in reasonably safe condition adequate brakes
for the control of its trains was one owing, among others, to
travelers in the situation which the respondent here occupied.
Sections 1 and 9 of the Safety Appliance Act converts this qualied
duty by the common law into an absolute duty, from the
iolation of which there arises a liability for an injury resulting
therefrom to any person falling within the terms and intent of the
act. Compare Louisville d7: Nashville R. R. Co. v. Layton, supra,
626; St. Louis cit Iron Mountain Ry. v. Taylor, 216 U. S. 281, 295.
To conne the benecial effect of these provisions to employes and
passengers would be to impute to Congress an intention to ignore
the equally important element which their enactment actually con-
tributes to the safety of travelers at highway crossings. Since all
of these three classes of persons are within the mischief at which
the provisions are aimed, it is quite reasonable to interpret the
statute imposing the duty £3 including all of them.
It fairly may be said that the nature of the duty imposed by a
statute and the benets resulting from its performance usually
determine what persons are entitled to invoke its protection. InFairport, Painesville ti: Eastern B. R. Co. vs. Meredith. 5
l1-I..'__.. m J7. 0 1:1 n 1!. _ n-._. __. nn 111-; nnn _.u. .1.¢l.lC.FI.'l92iU'I'l, 1. Ii D. I". II. U0. V. Ii-8GI'1- I'll, DU red. OIU, WHCTB HID
railroad company failed to erect and maintain suicient fences, as
required by a state statute, in consequence of which an animal
got upon the track and derailed the train, it was held that an
employe upon the train who was injured was entitled to recover
under the statute. In the opinion, delivered by Mr. J usticc Brewer
pp. 373-374!, it is said:
At any rate, it clear that the fact that certain classes of per-
sons were intended to be primarily protected by the discharge of a
statutoryduty will not necessarily prevent others, neither named
nor intended as primary beneciaries, from maintaining an action
to recover for injuries caused by the violation of such legislative
command. It may well be said that, though primarily intended
for'the benet of one class, it was also intended for the protection
of all who need such protection. . . . The purpose of fence
laws, of this character, is not solely the protection of proprietors
of adjoining elds. it is also to secure safety to trains. That
there should be uo obstruction on the track is a matter of the ut-
most importance to those who are called upon to ride on railroad
trains. Whether that obstruction be a log placed by some wrong-
doer, or an animal straying on the track, the danger to the trains,
and those who are traveling thereon, is the same. To prevent such
obstruction being one of the purposes of the statute, any one whose
business calls him to be on a train has a right to complain of the
COTDDHHV. it f5lil§ tn nnmnlv with This Qf2i111'nI-11' rirnfv H ' "74 ""nI]' *7 -- 7---~ --' '---|_--J '--~- -1---v -vwvv--v-; Huh;-
See also Hayes v. ilfichigan Central R. R. Co., 111 U. S. 228, 239-
240, and other authorities cited in the Reesnum case.
In the light of what has now been said, it follows that the duty
imposed upon petitioner by the provisions of the act in respect of
power controlled brakes extends to and includes travelers at rail-
way-highway crossings.
Second. The holding of the court below as to the doctrine of
the last clear chance is challenged as being contrary to the weight
of American authority ; but we are precluded from considering
the contention because it does not present a federal question. The
federal Safety Appliance Act, as we already have said and this
court repeatedly has ruled, imposes absolute duties upon inter-
silt, re} cxanlplo, Illinois Cent. R. Co. v.KNelson, 173 Fed. 915, st. Louis
8: S. F. R. Co. 12. Summers, 173 I-ed. 358; Smith 1'. Railroad, 114 N. C. 728,
734-735; Hays v. Railway, 70 Texas 602, 607. Contra: Thompson v. Salt
Lake Rapid Transit Co., 16 Utah 281, 292.
6 Fairport, Painesville d3 Eastern R. R. Co. vs. Meredith.
state railway carriers and thereby creates correlative rights in
favor of such injured persons as come within its purview; but the
right to enforce the liability which arises from the breach of duty
is derived from the principles of the common law. The act does
not aifect the defense of contributory negligence, and, since the
case comes here from a state court, the validity of that de-
fense must be determined in accordance with applicable state
law. Moore v. C. ti 0. Ry. Co., 291 U. S. 205, 214 at seq., and
cases cited; Gilvary v. Cuyahoga Valley Ry. C'0., - U. S. , April
2, 1934. And see Scizlemmer v. Buffalo, Roelceefer, ¢C'c. Ryn, 205
U. S. 1, upon second appeal, 220 U. S. 590, 598. The same is true
of the doctrine of the last clear chance, which likewise is not af-
fected by the act. If doubt uiight otherwise exist in respect of
the specic application of the cases cited to that doctrine, re-
garded independently, the doubt would vanish when consideration
is given to the relation which it bears to the rule of contributory
negligence, namely, that it amounts in effect to a qualication of
that rule, Atchison, T. ti} S. F. Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 196 Fed. 878,
880, having the result of relieving the injured person from the
consequences of his violation of it.
Nothing we have said is to be understood as indicating our ac-
ceptance, as a substantive principle, of the ruling of the court
below in respect of the point. That question is left open for con-
sideration and determination when, if ever, it shall be so presented
as to admit of its being dealt with upon its merits.
Judgment oirwned.
A true copy.
Test:
Clerk, Supreme Court, U. S.
- -.-.-
ul-1-"
;,"_'_ '..Tl
we 3....-
' 4
' I
-ilitni
4-_|qe-:1=
1
=2
- J.!;:'_{._'_.., ._ ,--- - !Mr rQ. -.v- lrJOHN EDGAR HOOVER @- ' cl 3' nmlcvon Y 92 M '
I i.92'fi.i mlZ gszmsam of gllnnegsim 3
I'.'.: l92._QlL§.§npa1'imm1nfZ|uo.ce ~.'..;w.-1.
I aslngfnn, g. a. A L':I.'.l .
ydl-cg June 6, 1934. "" " """"
_, ..:v-
MEQLQB-PiNQlM__FOR IRE-_ D1§iEOf_10§
92-
For your information, I wish to advise that the Supreme Court
rendered a decision in the cases of Lynch vs United States and Wilnsr vs
United States on May 28, 1934 holding invalid Section 17 of the National
Econom Act which provided that "all laws granting or pertaining to yearly
renewable term insurance are hereby repealed" because it takes away from
the insured the right to sue under the contract, in violation of provisions
of the Fifth Amendment.
The full effect of this decision on the work of the Division
in War Risk Insurance cases can not immediately be determined, but I have
talked with Mr. Beardslee briefly and he tells me that this decision throws
the gates open to over 20,000 persons for bringing suit on War Risk Insurance
contracts. Mr. Beardslee is conferring today with officials of the Veterans
Administration with a view to obtaining figures on cases affected by the
decision and he will prepare an estimate so that the Division may be informed
as to the amount of extra investigative work this will entail and he will
forward same to you immediately.
If it is so desired, I will keep in touch with Hr. Beardslee and
see that this estimate is in your hands at the earliest possible time.
Respectfully,4.. n. 2 '
Q REOORDEB
mu 26 1934 ly_, ~'! ; is L
~" F1 J U.v@~/ ;;.,vi 5/
92
S ,1 ii§lrat ff?
Er ,._
3_T;H
-.-.-5 .
L
II 9
-'7.
:" ,.M»;
a-_.-'_... .
k'*-.- as"-
....r.. _ -InJOHN EDGAR HOOVER '-'
DIRECTORT , iieinn of glrresiigatinn 6
92 -L ' 3H.,§3.§=;=a.=1mac of Elastic:
I Q Fnslyinginu, Q. QT.
IDL:EC June 21, 1934
uruozunnml FOR am. TAmlQ/
Iith further reference to m@'ye;crandum of June 6,
1934, concerning the additional number/of War isk Insurancecases which the Division will be re grired le becauseof the United States 6upreme_Court Eecisio the case ofLynch versus United States which he d thelNationa1 Economy
Act of March 20, 1933, invalid, I called pon Hr. H. H. Milka,
Chief of the Insurance Claims Council of the Veterans Admini-
stration and discussed the effect of this decision with him.
He stated that on March 20, 1933, there were 23,000 claims
, for permanent and total disability benefits under War Risk In-
surance policies pending in the Veterans Administration. From
past experience he estimated that from fifteen to eighteen per
cent of these claims would be allowed. To state it differently,
letters of disagreement pill probably be sent out in from eighty-
two to eighty-five per cent of the cases. As to the rapidity
with which the Insurance Council can consider these claims, M.
Milks stated that from 1,000 to 1,200 per month will be dis-
posed of. However, he called attention to the Veterans Admini-
stration regulation which prohibits the Insurance Claims Council
from taking any action on the cases affected by the Supreme I
Court decision until such time as the President by proper order
directs the Claims Council to begin consideration of the claims.
He expected that this would be done in the near future.
In order to obtain an estimate of the number of cases
arising out of the 23,000 claims mentioned above which will actu-
ally end in suit, I called Colonel Arnold who is the Chief of the
Field Division of the Veterans Administration. He said that if
the courts hold that with the passing by Congress of the act cf 92'
March 20, 1933, operation of the Statute of Limitations was sus-
pended until the Supreme Court held the Act unconstitutional, then
he would say that between 8,000 and 10,000 suits can be expected.
On the other hand if the National Economy Act is held not to affect I" ' -4"-'-vI-gr.,- Q-. __!'~--_-.._ __~ _- 11; £.i;oo=»um'| ,-7'/3~~**!"-' ~17
.e92//' &. I/',_.!' ' ,;;,_,-92;» ~9292Iw~!;:r5 -. a
92i92P ha. x ~/ K ~92-E, I ' 92/ !,a~92 " s
;3"""'|
F 1
-on .-y- .v_~
1l~ - I, _- I
.-2" 4
-n-M-|_¢
-...-_-Q
!
I- -
E
3
.|.
f!"'JL. -. - 92 I X
1 992 m .
Homo. for llr. Tam -2- 6/'21/'34
the running of the Statute, then he anticipates that less than
2,000 suits will be filed. .
From the above it appears that whatever number of
suits will actually be filed, they will not he filed all at
once,but on the contrary, as letters of disagreeent will emanate
from the Veterans administration at a rate of only 1,000 to 1,200
per month, the filing of the suits will be spread out over a long
period.
H. Beardslee advised m by telephone that he had sent
a letter to Ur. Stanley informing him of the necessity for more
attorneys in the field to handle the large number of suits he
expects to be filed throughout the country, of the necessity for
more funds for traveling, the taking of depositions and other
costs incidental to litigation, and that he feels that at least
twenty-five more investigators should be assigned to this type
of work.
If the information which was obtained from the Veterans
Administration is accurate, it does not appear that the Division
has any cause for changing the existingimethod of procedure in
this type of cases at the present time or in the immediate future
Respectfully,
. Lott.
J
5?-15
1.:-., .
91?»-s
- '~
1
cu--1
iii
eta; _
--_ 7 ' '1
."1_,=.-.
E R:
._ _,___" 'lrf-
._ '-,, -..1.,.~.In1I ' *1 i I £1 .7
.i "r=. ' " DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE T
GB WASHINGTON. D. c.
92. -' 0
June 19, 19:54
CIRCULAR N9. 2569
/,TO ALL UNITEID STATES ATIURNEYS AND E OF THIS BUREAU:
Rea Supreme Con,1'|:,/Decision in
the Lynch and Wilner Cases.
I
On June 4, 1934, the Soprano Court of the U11ited'States rendered
an opinion in the cases of Margaret Shea/Lynch, Petitioner, 1". United States,
and Samiilner, Petitioner, v. United States, holding that the Act of March
B0, 1953, c. _3, 48 Stat. 9 commonly called thevEconomy Act!, was unconstitu-
tional insofar as it attempted to repeal all lens granting or pertaining to
Yearly Renewable Term Insurance.
As a result of this decision it is expected that the Veterans
Administration will resume consideration of the twenty odd thousand War
Risk Insurance claims pending before it, and that suits rill be filed in
the various federal district courts as rapidly as dieagrents occur.
It is the contention of this Bureau that all claimants who secured
denials before March 20, 1953, must have brought their actions within the
time fixed by the Act of July 3, 1930, just as if the Economy Act had not
been passed.
' This view is supported by reason and the well established principle
that,
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers
no rights; it imposes no duties; it a.f1ords no protection;
it grants no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as in-
operative as though it had never been passed."
Norton v. Szelby Gounty 886! 118 '0'. S. 4.25, 442; Hirsh v.
mock App. D. C. 1920! 26'? Fed. 614, 618, reversed on
another ground 92.1! 856 U.S. 135; Chicago, Indianapolis
8:. louisville Rwy. Go. v. Beckett 913! 228 U. S. 559,566;
E: parts Siebold 879! 100 U. S. 3'71, 376.
kg b_;-_,QQii.1!.»AL
[NDEZED <4, ll ' _92" / ,";'""'
.92
Q e.
it.."-'
J y -. ..
,_ _
i;-ir i
. -,3;-tr
-. 1
in--.
---.*
.."+
1
1'
:1. A
$953
~ I
i
Q
n
Jirw.> ¢ o
-2-
Moreover, the courts have given unanimous recognition
to the rule that a void act cannot repeal a valid existing statute
and that the previous law remains in full force and operation as
if the repeal had never been attempted. Frost v. Corporation Com-
mission of Oklehos et al, 929! 278 U.S. 515; 526, 527; American
Wood Products Co. v. City of Minneapolis et al, C.C.A. 8th 1929!
35 F. {2d! 657, 659; People v. Schraeberg, Ill. 1952! 179 N. E.
829, 830: North Bend Stage Line, Inc. v. Department of Public Works
et al, ween. 1932! l6 P. ea! 206, 210; and see American Digest,
"Statutes", Key Numbers 63 and 168.
It would seem, furthenmore, that those cases would be in
point in which it has been held that provisions suspending the
operation of statutes of limitation in favor of persons laboring
under disabilities refer only to parties whose disabilities existed
at the time their claim accrued and cannot be invoked by those whose
disabilities subsequently arose. DeArnaud v. United States 894!
l5l U. S= 485, 496; 3ausernsn.v. Blunt 895! 147 U. S. 647, 657;
Harris V. McGovern 878! 99 U. S. 161, 167, and see American Digest,
"Limitation of Actions", Key Number 76.
At least two courts have held explicitly that a statute of
limitations continues to run against a party in spite of the existence
of an unconstitutional law which apparently takes away his right to
sue. Bigelee v. Bowers, D.C. N. Y. 1935! 5 F. Sup. 346, 34?; Harris
v. Grey, 673! 49 Ga. 585. '
in order that all Government attorneys interested in War
Risk Insurance law may be kept in close touch with new developments,
you are urgently requested to notify this office nsmediately upon the
filing of any new suits in your district or territory.
Very truly yours,
WILL G. BEAHDSLEE
Director, Bureau of War Risk Litigation.
1
.-
.1._-_a~.-.-, ._V
~.
,1- -. ."
_2I;;~..- 92
.,...-. $.-4|. V, -
" Bar Group Gets Report
13". i
Tw
.
.e_--
...;
r _-I
5;.
' Ft?J
..,,i :3-I. .-..--.
" F. -o.>'s.l,l_as
.1 -.-_.._...
-nu --1-."n"x **'" * 'l 192I92'92-'"' -92 - »- -
'1:-n-Q - k.
XHM '1;olsnn, -l- I tzi. . . A. _ H1} '_J Ii.-iohr,._7
- A P . Us
ltir.
M1.
III
i Y;
Tele. Room ______
Mr. HulIuman____
Miss Gandy.._______Rosen,
'Tair|m_ t -T1'riiter,__,m:
-'~".C.SulliVan
'--ii-Q.-i-_..i
i
Uiiili |]Ai|.Y NEWS
4&0-Fmc»-/< rams
FEB 23ate 1959
age 5 Col./ s
. 92 ,
Decisions on Communlsts E
Before House of Delegates
A report charging that 24 l§J¬_§;premg__Qgdr_t decisions"weakened internal security and en ged Communist
lcLivit' ," was presented Monday to the merican BarlAsso-ciationlis House of Delegates here. i
the same time, the asso- it r
ciations president was assur-
ing new s m e n that relation-
ships between the association
and Chief Justice Earl War-
ren, who resigned from the
group. are very friendly."
It had been reported that
Warren dropped out of the
association after 28 years be-
cause it had been critical of
the court's handling ot cases
involving Communists.
The special report dealing
with Communist tactics was
moved up on the agenda oi. the
business sessions oi the asso-
ciation's midyear meeting in
the Edgewater Beach hoteL
I U U
[T SAID: While members oi
this association view some 0!
the decisions- 1 the U.S. Su-
preme Court} to be unsound
and incorrect, they deem pro-
posals for limiting its jurisdic-
tion the court! unwise and
likely to create more problems
than they will solve."
Delegates were to act on the
report lake Monday. .
ROSS L. of Ros-3%
well, N.M., president or the
ABA, said he.had discussed
Warren:-1 withdrawal Irom the t
group with the chief justice.
He assured me or his high 1
regard for the association and
ot his intentions to continue
to co-operate fully with it in
the future as he always has
in the past," Malone said.Another touchy matter theybody had tossed n its lap was}
a report urging Congress to
adopt "remedial legislation"
wherever "there are reason-
able grounds to believe" that
court decisions have weakened
the security oi the United
States. i 3
The report frowns on pro- i
posals to limit the Jurisdic-
tion at the U.S. Supreme
Court. .
But it "recognizes that sharp
differences have b een ex-
pressed as to the soundness
oi some oi! the recent decisions
. . . affecting national and
stste security, with particularBlastmg SupremeCo'urtt
COPIES OF an article titled
Let's Vote on Sundays!" from
the Daily News supplement.
This Week Magazine was dis»
tributed Monday to members
oi the House oi! Delegates. l
The article appeared last
Nov. 2.. . . '
MORE THAN 1,000 mem-
bers oi! the ABA are in Chi-
cage tor the mid-year meet-
ings.
Sunday, they heard Chief
Justice Raymond P. Drymsl-
sld ol Chicago; Municipal
Court describe a major revi-
sion in the city's trot-
o court setup scheduled for
next year.
One ot the main teatures
In addition, he said it no
longer will be possible tor 1
repeater to avoid appearance
before s judge simply by pay-
ing tines for moving violations
at the Violations Bureau.
'.i*i1 _ _1
YQ} 92'§'5.
~01" nE'E5;n_l'$"
; muss 4 lass
reference to activities of Crnunists. hf: E_ __ _ _B MAR 10 i959>-7Y
" 79 -/ ;~i4y__/.2
ii "'-'' Q- .6 -.I
I-
-t-4-
K-'2PW
-.
92C-
wili be the establishment oi a '1' 5;-
nlght traltic court. ' E-I92
1/1_ I U
1 so-.'-_
.<.-..
.-;-.~.;.-_ .¢
n--'-.-I
:2-:1
.- sla
.-
3
1"
s__3
-.-M
-, v-ct .-
r.. A -l .
i
7
i
@_,92_o92 no so if 1-» /- if »' y.topunish hatedmen. . " ,1 5' ' "in The Decline, rt
Of flied Lawyer
==% BY Mo! I-corner %=t|
. _ -. - 92= ' The lawyers of America, in conventio nibied, hie de-clared their strong suspicion that the U. S ugreme Couij is
sort on Communists, and their conviction t e way to keep
it trom further serious mischiet is tor Congress to rewrite thelaws so that any £0o1--including the Suwme curt tools-canunderstand their intent. _ ' - ' ," ., --_ .Doubiless the commit}? chairman,- Fe er "p Brown,
and the other framers of t gmegcan Ba; Assn. resolutions will
regard my summary as too crude and rass5knuckied.,_ To be sure,
I have not reprinted any 0! their nioeneliyisms, such as hailing
the judges as "the ultimate guardians ot the Bill of Rights and
the protectors ot our freedom._' But these silken words are woven
into a mask, and our business as thinkers As tgdstrike throughthe mask, " - ' - ;.;.. :1;/,9; /,0_ - , __ /I have struggled through the whereée's "éf1d the "the1iei'oé --~
and the "be it resolveds"-over 3. thousand tortured Words of them
-and I can only report that they add up to a slap in the face for the
court. - - _
- » - s =i= 1 ,_ _
Chief Justice Warren, who resigned tron| the Bar Assn. last
fall and has rebulfed all pleas to reconsider, knew the temper
and outlook oi these lawyers. I care much more for his corn-
mentary on them than tor their commentary on him. -
He might have fphbed them oi! with hypocrisies, but the sameforthrigtt quality that he has shown in his great civil liberties and
civil rig ts decisions, he shows in this particular gesture.
There are some who feel that the resolutions might have
been much worse. They cite two scores on which the lawyers
pulled their punche9rst, in disapproving any proposals to strip
the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over certain-cases; second,
In striking out a clause about technicalities which are invoked
against the protection or our nation. ,»It would have been curious
indeed ii n profession which has Iiwl rleh -on technicalities
should dismiss the procedural protections oljue and the
Bill of Blghts as "technicalities" to be swept any Ii B|e'lu'[e.ncy
This may have been in Cl1ie£Jiistioc_WArrena"m1nd w hen,- alter
the lawyers assigned as counsel for the Communist spy. Rudolph
Abel, had completed their appeal argument based on a pmcedunl
lt'<fl1niCa1ity." he thanked them for their public service ti-t_undettnk~==
ing a case which normally would be oensive to them. -1-no
arren not to miss the revealing gesture. " ._ - - 1|. at - in ,
, kg &
. _x ,7 gr ~ '5rr_i
SENT DIRECT!? 1*?»-W? N J59
_ _:1_ _|_;' 92t92'
45 6! F," 10
92/ '1' ii.- ..| _L:_|' III-uqlw HIIIIC/rTo1' Y 1 B
or
DSE
T IW. . S ..
Tele _
Hollomon _....__
we
. /1 I
/5-aw W}--i L.;.lf
d92
The Washington Poul emd_____
Times Herold
The Washington Daily New! __
The Evening Star __._.__.i
New York Herold Tribune i
New York Journal-American __.
New York Mirror ____.__.,__i
New York Daily News ___._._
New York Pout _iQ_.._._-an---'-II-Iii
The New York Time!
The w°rker
The New ]_.eader__i_.._._.
The "winii Street ioumoi i.
Date
" FEB 2 7 imi- /.
/-'-P
..¢-
5';_§, .,. .
.E 1- :
. --
i
4
---_-..,.-I92
1'
.. cg
ax .
{Q
1
bi
r
1
1l
ll
ll1* 4..
3. -J
-v . -r 1' . ,
" trrlllsly not all American lawyers have turned i.ntu-huaaaaa
after dangerous thoughts. There seems to have been a_ sizable and
even surprising minority at Lhc Bar Assn. meeting" that fought the
resolutions. - j . _ _ - '
But what has come over the rest of our American lawyers?
Here is n profession which has played a great and creative role
in American history. Almost halt the signers oi the Declaration
of Independence, and more than halt the members oi the Con-
stitutional convention, were lawyers. Jellerson was a self-trained
lawyer, Andrew Jackson served a brief apprenticeship to the law,
Abe Lincoln read law and rode circuit. l_»!'ooI.lroL1.# wl_lson wu a
lawyer before he became a prolessor, and Franklin Roosevelt was
one before he became a politician. ' ' -
Even in colonial timesas Daniel Boo;-stin tells us in his new
book, The Americans: The Colonial Experience" Random House!
-lawyers were eective in the making ot the new American
society because most .Iaymen knew law and most lawyers had not
grown so specialized as to cease to be men. Politics and law were
Iused: lawyers had a sense or statccraft, and politicians had a feel-
ing tor logic and intellectual order. " - ~
, - In 1- I-
What has caused the decline of the American lawyer, as wit-
ness the spectacle oi a-convention-Iul oi! leaders ot.their protes-
sion who have been playing92G-man in Chicago? '
Partly, I think, the lawyers have identied themselves with
the corporate managers from whom their lushest business and
their biggest tees come. Partly also. and more recently, many
lawyers have identied themselves with the prosecution phase of
the law and have come to see themselves as stern lnquisitors who
are not to'be swerved from the pm-suit or politically-hated men.
it is interesting that Mr. Brown. who headed the committee in
Chicago, had served as counsel tor one oi the inquisitorial groups
in Washington. '
Thus while some lawyers have acquired a Wail Street mind,
others have acquired a G-man mind, and some have combined thefurn Tu it haw-no-0 fnv nus tn |:nrrnna-l- that null-'|-anon AI §92AeA vvuantulavrv. 1.: n. llLLC§J au-1. an: |.u nusscaq, uwu. u92..ruu:a U; nicao a.iu.u|.u.a
frames will help the legal prolession to fulll its best role in our
society? p .. p
8- -it e '.
Obviously I am speaking only about some lawyers, not ail.
I have no way oi telling how representative the group in Chicago
was oi the profession as a whole, or what the vote would have
been if each member had a_chance to vote by secret ballot, rather
than to "stand up and be counted" in open convention as one
iruciilent delegate urged. For him, evidently, the vote was not a
canvass of convtion but a testing of-patriotism.
One thing that has happened to the profession is that a liberal
elitewperhaps even a civil liberties elitehas been separated from
the profession as a whole, leaving a big gap between the best
lawyers and judges and the general run of them.
Someone at the convention argued tor the 4'ESOil.ii3iOii5, on the
ground that lawyers must continue to criticize the Supreme Courts
decisions. By all means. , _
But such criticism must be hammered out by men who study
the law, as well as practice it. The law does not grow greater or
richer by the tai-ring oi a voice vote at a gathering which resembles
an American Legion convention more than it does a scholars study
01":-1-unlge's cliaynbers. ~ e _ _ ' '_"""'
I 92_ l1 e !
' THE MARCH OF TIME
DISTRIBUTORS COIPOIATION
369 LEXINGTON AVENUE
NEW YORK. CITY
ADVERTISING-PIJBIJCITY DEPT.
/4!
|!
U Y
it 'EI'.'Cl.. [_ & _Mr. S. I. Tracy,
Inspector, Federal Bureau
Washington, D. G.
Deer Mr. Tracy:April 10, 1957- V A ... _. -.
E. .ln_!92n,1 .
2. <".1'-:1
' >1.- " '_~-.nl::-.
1Y
1 FL. I'!a'r9"y ,_.
Q . I. '~_n.,____.
' Mr. ofwnh1
- '74. 3.92vin....L
.2. En-be -......
41'. Joseph .._..
Mr. Leah! --cu
. Nlchch. -
HI. Quinn...-.-
-I 7!}. §-c!".'¬IlP .-.--1; '14.. I - r in
i Ar. ."1r:1r.._...._
Jnumzsmbxfj
/J/5¢.=.___._If:
of Investigation,
I want,$o bring to your attention the new issue
or Tn
one or the principal episodes is devot to an
instructive picturization
est in crime detection, a
in instances has produced
results.
This episode, entitle i9, V01. III, 1 'which
of the p os inter-
common ace hobby which
tcp- etch, practical
," will be
4 released nationally on April 16 together gith two
sequences--"Th$Supreme__
scriptions o which are included in the attachedother equsll interestingQourt and/¥Britsin!a.Food Detenses"--brie: de-
synopsis.
I hope you will pass this
you believe would like to
It you would care to havesynopsis on to others whosee the new March or Time. ':1LZ2!
a list of the theatres in
your community which regularly show The March or
Time, please writs tc ms es I shall he most happy
to send you one.
Very truly yoursi
4 _.
"Publicity birector
CHFgJ _. ' "' " "'"*""""'_ . 1
mo 4/ - L _
Q/
95.-. xly i!'°/~92¢e92Ld"'REXI!RDiMl
mnnxns APR .1=» E931, .;:..
92 _ 1 1 j;:*1CE0* J,-fy"j.=92;; '._._ 34 ..._¢-¢--- qr
,.,., Y-7 5
If
F 92J /' 1
l!"/ .3,C I1
1
!
.
4-'3 *1 ::ilL:A1____ ¢ »
_1;!,|-
1-I
l1 HE llfllftjli UP" IIIUE
-ssue No. 9- Volume III
SYNOPSES OF THE EPISODES
THE SUPREME COURT .
Two weelcs after his second inaugural, President Roose-
velt proposed to Congress and to the nation that he appoint
six new Justices to tho Supreme Court if the present Justices,
over the age of 70, refuse to retire. Immediately a great con-
troversy swept across the country. The biggest mail in his-
tory llooded the Senate's private postollice, daily revealing
in letters of protest and endorsement the interest of U. S.
citizens in the President's proposal.
In the Senate, a once-solid Democratic majority is split.
Loud in protest against the Presidenfs proposal are seasoned
Democrats like Clark of Missouri, Glass of Virginia, Mon-
tanas Burton K. Wheeler. The public, remembering those
decisions oi the Supreme Court in the last two years that
had scrapped fundamental New Deal reforms, follows with
new interest the progress through the Federal Courts of a
current momentous Constitutional case-the Wagner Nation-
al Labor Relations bill.
Todays conflict between the Executive and the Judiciary
is the sixth in all U. S. history and perhaps the most signi-
cant. in the Court there are but three Justices pleasing to
New Deal liberals. Chief justice Charles Evans Hughes is
AMATEUR SLEUTHS
To the 10 million U. S. citizens that each month avidly
read hundreds of pulp-paper magazines and thousands
of detective novels, the detectives job is a highly romanti-
cized one they envy. Ambitious amateurs who fancy
themselves as master-mind detectives nd live thrills in the
innovation in pulp magazinesreal rogues gallery pictures
of actual men wanted by the police. Newest slant for am-
ateur sleuths are the Photocrime and the Crirnele, combi-
nations of clues assembled in professional manner, enabling
crime addicts to match their wits against the craftiest of
criminals.
in New Jersey a group of business and professional rnen
decided a few years ago to do something with this hobby.
Pooling the resources of their rofessions they developedthe rst private Crime Detection llaboratory in America. En-
gineers, dentists, doctors, designers, they become experts in
BRITAIN"S FOOD DEF ENSES °
Famed is England for her rich solid foodher roast beef
and plum pudding. But nearly half of this food that Eng-
land eats must be imported and without that half 45 million
Britons would starve within three months. Only stoppage
of this supply is war and as the clouds gather over Europe,
against war all England is preparing. Launching a recruit-
ing drive to rebuild her army to war strength, she discovers
an appalling factone half of the applicants are re'ectedas unt for service, ironically, for lack of proper food.
Despite the knowledge that food had been scarce for a
decade in England's distressed areas, the nation is shocked
by a report of dietary experts. it reveals that 22,500,000
people in the United Kingdom lack proper food.
Forced to do something, an embarrassed government ducks
the malnutrition issue, encourages a campaign for physical
tness, but, champion of the under rivileged he Arch-bishop oi York warns that laclr of fbod and -at lack of
exercise is the fundamental proiaierrii J '112533
puzzling to both liberals and conservatives. Those w
agree with the President believe that the path of New
legislation can be cleared only by circumventing the die-ha c
conservatives among the balance of the Supreme Cour 1
nine old members.
1937 may see the outcome of the struggle either by p
sage of the Roosevelt proposal, by compromise or by who
sale resignation. But whatever happens, the political hist
of the U. S. will feel its effects for years to come. . __
In this episode-Newaworthy People
President Franklin Delllc Rool-evoll Senator Robert I. Wlgnor
Chief Justice Charles Evans nus gifazyg _ m I
Associate J|utluea:GeorII Sutherland °' M° "mu mm" Senator Bennett Clan-I Clark
wntu VIII De 1 r °' M"""""Jamel Cllri I;eRie;'hol|ll GI . vir
Owen Jone h Bole taBenjamin ill-Eu Cdrdon Ru
HRH. Phi sh . J. Warren Madden Chnlrnlln If14" ""'"'= ""'*4*" rum»: Labor int-u-a Burl
-Newsworthy Places
New Saar-ems Gear! Bat!-ag set-are PategInterior Supreme Court Chamber President: omen
moulage, ballistics, ngerprint identication and other sci-
ences of crime. Volunteering their services to the police
without charge, the have assisted in the solvin of morthag_300 ca have_w§m_tlie__g;o_n1mendat1on of lifiiel ii-Manrlohn Edgar oover. T
l"l0I101'iI1g them, the University of Pennsyiemviaia famed
criminologist, Professor Thorston Sellin says: l hope that
other communities will nd within their borders trained
professional men willing to give their services in the same
manner and for the same cause that you have. If they dc
crime will become much more diicult.
In this episode_lYgwau*orthy People
--- cam c-arm Tani Edgar aw-Ii.-_ Professor Thorsten Selilin,
Individual rnernhen of I-he New Unlverllty of Pennsylvania:Jen-Ir Crime Detection Laboratory famed ertlsllnobg-ht r
?¢/- 5- %%//-//
The War Ministry decides to take immediate and practical
action. lt announces that henceforth every enlisted Britisher
will get not three square meals a day, but four. Applicants
too underfed to pass entrance tests may go to special recon-
ditioning camps where, with body-building food for s. basis,
a program of physical training can build a t and vigorous
group of men, on which, in peace or in war, the future well-
being of the Empire can depend.
In this epis0deNewsworthy People
Alfred Dal Coop , J lhl Huxley, famed ht loll!!-ahillntmr of D-I-not Secretary at I-anion: olwllil
ust In Wood Arrllblllll of r rt. Blah Frills"@331 n--fa _ of up cam-it it Eltlllnl
'5-Newswor Places
IIQQIJ lnl wlrlrfl I Ni i *" ' i i Kali 6'
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTI" ;OH
Room 5744 ___ 1>-Ij
Director
Nathan
iej
Tamm
Quinn
Glavin
lies Gnnoy
Tracy
Schilder
HarboFoxworth
Donegan
Renneberger
Joseph
§ 9 Personnel Files Section
§1'|nu QnninnLL§-IHJ IJWUULUII
H159 Sheaffer
j j f V zémiv ' W "*7 *4o' Send Flle Note and Return
_ -* <?5@-**=¢-_:?*9 __¬r#¥:See Me For Approprlate Actlon
0 0 ""'°" "'2" "'°r 1
_ W_____ 5.? LIV
_ _____ __e
_¢i;
'1. _4.' -'
QPT
_ .' aw-v-_--'-._
4;-92.¬'.'_,
~Q
rj-. -' .¢ ._aw. .,hfi-l--.
-4:2 V. cg».
."'E'Q_'.:
!
ad
4
1 t
. ..:u
-._..._.-3J 92
92
Q .
T
1-
1-e.
'4192.
7
~r~.__ :
3°_.y 01 1,
3- H. v.0, _ F ILuaoksnmliioh '
larch 6, 1951H-_,V ,-2 - ' 1-,l 4
v,_.John Edgar Hoover, Director __ _; _
P OBI: I Eh
lashing?-en, Q¢_'___>,1
13.0.3&1. Ta- -
Lulu?
Dear Ir» Hoover: I
thank you lost sincerely for your letter of Fli 5, 3-95! iii W?
your enclosure of nateral regarding your department and its activity»
I have had this mater-al already in the hands of several oi lay friends,
one of the ueeutives of our oenpazq has it now; so you see what I think
01' its .
/ V/ 1 would like to have you sad he the cost oi the list you sens to as and at the nines sand this sans list of pamphlets IS?» W
Clarksville, Texas» I will be glad to send you the cost1* eee pllnphlotl because I will be using cw copy and do not aish to seal
it 150 llre '
/ May I comment here for the moment on ho! ecntinusly cautious we hope 5
will be to kee politics out of your department» I take evory opportunity
to talk this p int to my friends and place emphais on results rather than
patronage.V7 It is so urprisihg that your superior, iir§92C-ummings, would shewsuch lack of gigpriety at the moment as__ to his pparent lobbying for the
packing of th uprens Court and in his pointless and illogical endeavors
regarding same. If the supporters of the additional luprems Court
members knew how the man in the harbor shop, on the street ear, and the st:
corner is talking against this move, they would forget their 'cailyho' and
get to work and with the same amount of energy directed to logical reasonin
find the way to legislate effectively within the constitution. If these
same supporters Ianted to show their sincerity they would have suggelted
this cou:-ts additions distributed onver say a ten year period; that would
be at¢tesmAnship- Ho one doubts that more additions are needed in the
lower courts, if logical members could be found. Logical persons free from
politics are too busy with their personal affairs to take a job or doubtful
returnh I think that careful thought on the statistics added to the
A21! Generalls letter to the Presiderxtgwith due considerations for the fact
that the 1915 figure|,are misleading on account of congestion and eta;-gun;
inefficiencies and the fact that his departanenthe efficiency should have
increased hand in hand with that exhibited in the direction and ldlilfl dtrlt
°r °d°r '°i'n°° ' -*3 1m"-1'1"1'I lhould indicate that the personal is not asextremely short as Washington soul} imiiu-g,., - * 5RECORDED & INDEXED Q 4' _- -' -Relief is no doubt needed but la LILpopu I. opinion in many parts is that thq3 P" ° °°"1'*- 1° We Irons Pleve to start. It is doubtful r the oldermembers of the houses would ls no ' t a law to sllmmn. .
¢,J,v92t' " s-JJV-'L9 7 L 'sbE§<92' 3W:"5"/ ' E a:;n G-nz.';
6: ..-_
.__ __
3
.5-1-=4
.., _:
,--._,_
hp-,.,-u
J:-
.r
.___nthem from eereioe -.1@-
I night nention that ehile your department eperativee mote moi: more4 , eey uyeelt in induetry, they ehould Ilkl I lot IOIOe their eelltiee
ere not, in my eetinetion, oomeneurete eith the reeponeibilitiee end nod]
of their work-
/ It ie e disappointment to eome oi ue who ere making e more determined
effort to find time from
government eotivitiee to
R.I".O which really bring
little attention and eid
to the attention of eoueour daily Iorx to study more carefully our
rind that two, of our deplrtnente like LB-I and
ue some tetinite reeuite end profits reoeive eo
from our legielltorle I for one I111, bring this
or our repreeentetivee end eenetore.
Pleeee be eeeured that I greatly eppreoiete the time onion you and
your deplrf-ment too: to llllk lvlillble the infornntim referred to.
Think you-
61%/L
92Yours truly
1 .Q*- a' -1»; ,qr-_ ul--=19-|_-....
_§___ '
J -.
i _.|
-,-_.._i
D
, .:;;.._ 1, *-15.".-
="-"--. :<;."§5-1';_- '
* 'E5 -E11
'- '-»£'--IV»--..,..._.g' il
§" 595"! larch 1a, 1937.
R-L_ fg..'_-ELI! ..
K
lNDEXED
M l
Your lotto: of lurch 8, 1937, bu
be-on rocoivod and in co-lpllanco with your roquaut
I an sanding copies at nz:-1:.-ma publication: d-calla;
with the nrx and function: of Bureau-1' rm-mm» *Z1,/I! till!-u, 1| no e or than
" publications.#70 "ho" *1; H.
In accordance with Iliting Deplrtmonhd.
peltclu I an procludau 1:-0:: ¢0Ilantin upm: _t.:u.t. '
portion of 7 latter wM¢h dais with proposed1og1|1ation.E1-Hovar, plan be uaurod of q dnp
Gpf-1'OC1.l'921O!1 for your comaemdu-tion of the effort:
of this Bureau in ccunectiorz with the existing crime
situation.
Iith bunt Iiahoa and kind regards, I an
Bincurlly yuura,
/,
-'3:
._._ .
. 9292_. ~--W "1
5.
'"'.1il MAR 1 s 1931 L
_ 1 _92 >1-9292 |92 ,,2 V 1 ------ |92 V-A 1, ,_.,...-- ~ 92 ._J,. }92 N W "' //pf._} //92 .-
I
4-750 Rev. 4-I7-B5!
II!
El
E
III
i /OMB 5'? -diff <f":-'= I5 /~92~ wé3"- Q 7&';"<;:"--$1 i ~t..i-
Ff -
XXXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIIMTIOII
FOIFH DELETED PAGE INFORMATION SHEET
Page s! withheld entirely at this location in the le. One or more of the following statements, where
indicated. explain this deletion,
Deleted under exempti0n s! with no segregable
material available for release to you.
information pertained only to a third party with no reference to you or the subject of your request.
lntormation pertained only to a third party. Your name is listed in the title only.
Documents originated with another Government agency ies!. These documents were referred to that
agency ies! for review and direct response to you.
Pages contain information furnished by another Government agency ies!. You will be advised by the FBI as
to the releasability of this information following our consultation with the other agency ies!.
Page s! withheld for the following reason s!:
T7 - ~ J A ' I +--For your information: "'5' L4 _ f7"~' -- if/i '92~jL-J1 '1 1l-ft L- _. - ~ ; , ' e
aw t ' _ 9d'a'¬»-E §<</rm-,_.» um/ed-D 7/.;:_5 /,5:-5;
The following number IS to be used for reference regard
c.rp>_s_m if 1 Q 1 <5 ,;c +2; ?* sepag¬s:7L'/_hg__ ;Mq_
DELETED PAGEKS!
NO DUPLICATION FEE
X FUR THIS PAGE§XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX!!§
_ . _, W , 2 1 ... 4.; In.-1, r. -+-:-=-;., -"=~ -1 .- --¥»is - ' -1-$46-T. .5-r-r * =7 -
.....1; _ ,;_??.._""92'._' _..-~... ~*--é~,'.':~, ¢-- '- --U rn-Y_- ';._?"B -',. » --,~ -if... ;<{I~_..-1 "
-- - ;. '- 'e- -W"* ' '~*-P" » lass». -1+ . v.-.-.n92'_92-.
- K, -" ' ---.
.7... ;._-_,_,--...» -. ,"*'=~31;92'92vjF:_ =_::,':_=/-:5 451-yr
Fe. 1.
1 r- " '23:"-$'..: =-.u':ss'~ "-I-1'-4--f~-7"-_ .¥~- :'-' '.-¢-5i==*Z" ~"@.->:=--. -
'»--i=-'1"-~ 2-:'..*"'r ;...-':. -~#~i,_,_,.
|
:;._-_,,,_5 .,,-. .-._- r. -,-:,¢- .4;-.-3, w. 1. ,..
1.-,5. .. ,1-_ ;-._ ..,.. - -.».A <-----,---=»e--92'iv-v~r-- --=»f92--
... _ - ._-.._ . 2 . ...i... -,__..='. --V, _____ ._ .'-i--~. ----.,. . -_.;_ ._.rE_ 74-. M 7':-I .. -l ' -...H ., .
is "' ,,»i=.;.-- ..
Q,-
A , I..- _._ ~___- T3. _; J-.-;_ ' I_,_ __.._. __ ._,__ ,___.._ ._ ,.-:.,. . , -- ._
_,,_____- _._ . ,- T--7». ~ -Hill-l
A -' to .»-,- -- e 1 l I_ ,- .~ . = '-' . |
.92 .' _ -_ -J _ 7-1? _j ..
l '"* _ if. . '
:;'_._.,._:;.;;»~- _ r .... - --=-1__v'-' _,92.:- .¢.r.- - ":1-a..'.-. ":'.t; F
92 .» -J -' »- 92 '5 I .
' 92
>9 3
_ ' 92.
, 92
. '_, _92, __,- , . -_ -'._--=.-._-- 4_ »,.i _ .. .. . -.4. - 92. '-, 32:. ,1; -II .-" - .. - ' " ' _ ., .- --K,-1 92 r . -t '* -. 1-at 1-vi-.1:.;;".rrif-.t=~. -"--+.+-.='-='- '~ . - 1,, ' ?".:.'. . » 2§'- 7 . .=¢:i§?Z_ I5-'-""' ':4;¬5; . .--we -r ~
5..." L, -. :' ,5? 1- .,,-¢:=.-17*".
"11-"7" t . ~---:e-."..- r..-77'... -_ 1::-. .,y92-4-lace-_..;!-:"f';.f__'i==!.. -. .-,|:-__-7 ...=" ,_
v-h _-i-an-0;; ~'-o-I-6 _ '_,,. ' 1'. . "
O3APR 1943..-*1
E-r ~ D
SUPREME COURT 0F THE UNITED STATES.
No. 10.-0c'rosm Tram, 1942.
Mitche|bClifton gndviason, John Ed-ward Simonds, Ear Hubbard, Fel-
ton Moore-. hVoodw rd, Marion Luther On Writ of Certiorari to0 Ellis, Robert Lee £al1ew, John David the United States Cir-
_!Queen, Robert Lee Qhodes, Peti- cuit Court of Appeals
tioners, for the Sixth Circuit.
vs.
The United States of America.
[March 1, 1943.]
Mr. Justice Fnsnnruarsn delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioners were convicted, in the District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee, of conspiring to damage property
owned by the Tennessee Valley Authority, a corporation in which
the United States is a stockholder, in violation of §§ 35 ! and 37
of the Criminal Code as amended 8 U. S. C. §§ 82, 88!. The
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit airmed the con-
victions, 124 F. 2d 58, and we brought the case here because it
presented serious questions in the administration of federal crim-
inal justice, 316 U. S. 651. The questions are similar to those de-
cided this day in No. 25, McNabb v. United States. The two cases
were argued at the same time and, as will appear from a short
summary of a long record, are governed by the same considera-
tions.1
In July 1939, the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter
Workers struck against the Tennessee Copper Companys mines
1 As in the McNabb case, there are no specic ndings here as to the cir-
cumstances in which the incriminating statements in controversy were admitted
against the petitioners. When these statements excepting the confessions oi
three petitioners! were oered in evidence, the petitioners objected, and the
trial court held a hearing in the absence of the jury to determine whether the
statements were "voluntary". At the conclusion ot this preliminary exam-
ination, the court overruled objections to the admissibility of these state-
ments. The jury was recalled and the same testimony was repeated. The
evidence relating to the confessions of three of the petitioner was, by
stipulation, heard only once and in the presence of the jury. Referring toall this evidence as certain parts oi! the root , yeaguigo tlfllll @118-S95
, . .~'f~=xm I f 9 I J__§E>13, C _1__;;__ L J1- gwk. '
,,-a__,-..-.-:-. . ,4 " . -J--I ...---u"-'*"" -
I
-- . ._..__h,;.,.r t_, . . _..--, -.-.--. =_ -;., -|_.._A-~ - _- " _ '._ T..' I 3.? ' .. *"1 '»-1:.s-"r*= '-" ;*-"'.~'1¢3*.3" :r:.._- Ysés. '2"
K. I;-»-92ia'-' H 0 i
_ {far _-.~.-I __. -- _
H .__-;r.,_,- , ,- n-L-I .,. . _r..-. - _:.= -1- .
_Jt."-.;- -r_ _ ,_ .
;'~,;_;;_:- ' H ._ _ Q; ->--.___5_'_< iv ..;- --- .
" .-r c
~ -~ _ .-
~ "92'r7 "V. - .-"".v-
:.- .~-a- .' -_ _ .- 1.- .~ 92'»IY'_~» » - - .
.-= _' .q V r .- . '921 .. __ i.1- J . -» 4" _. -V - _ -5_ i _. _ . , _..,-_-- =-- 1
, . _ ---c,_._ _ - W-,;-_-,-.- _- -1, -4 -. -.1:_ ,_ his--'~ - _.4._.s.__._.-.. ssq;-----gr-_ -- - --. I!
*'"-: - =' -"'-v '-:":1'- '_ i '- -- -. - _~ ,-_ r .--_ ",v" ~.-
",,,._~....-- .- - .- -1--_ -_.. JV-D .--_ ; *-" "' n_
. $ '
-1. I 1
_ -- __u
-~ -- - ". ,_. ._ - T... .- "QM-.., _,_..., :7-2" -Yv-
..l;;.;.__ - ' W... -~ -_,_-e r-_ " -....,... __w_ .- -..__ _ ... ____..,.-,-E1";-" - . .r¢p-.-.---~-- ,- !_-_i ----an. Ii -¢' .:'__~'J>92LF-"" - '-E-F-mlr
e-=~--- "¢-¢-...i- -v -5:. ..-.v-- .-_ _.-as-.,. ,_. ._..1-..- -. r_ __...r.. -.K"XI
...1=r?,§i. .,..'="'. ' - . __ n, __._'- ~ to-up-quIf:
,__,.__ E -,-~ §.- ___- -- ,1»-
, ._"_.---3-1-92 ._A . _' .- " _"._, -:2-:~:_ f?_".'i.¢.
2 Anderson at al. vs. United States.
at Copperhiii, Folk County, Tennessee. The strike was foiiowed
by a shut-down, but the mines were reopened in August after the
sheriff brought in a number of special deputies who were in the
companys pay. It was one of those obdnrate mining strikes, and it
continued into April of 1940, when the violence which gave rise to
this prosecution occurred. On April 1st the companys operations
were interrupted by the dynamiting of two power lines, owned
by the TVA, from which the company obtained the power neces-
sary for its activities. On April 14th two steel towers were
dynamited. Two days later two special agents of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation arrived in Copperhill to investigate the
explosions. On April 2-lth two more power lines were blown down.
began to take into custody strikers, including the eight petitioners,
whom he suspected of. participation in the dynannting. These
arrests were made without warrant. With commendable candor in
regard to this and other misconduct of officers of the law, the Gov-
ernment does not defend the legality of the arrests. The men
were not taken before any magistrate or other committing ofcer,
as required by Tennessee law. Michies Code 938! §11515. In-
stead they were taken to the company-owned Y. M. C. A. building
in Copperhill, which was being used by the sheriff and his special
deputies as their headquarters. On April 24th and 25th six more
special agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation arrived in
Copperhill to assist in the investigation.
Vi-bile the petitioners, with at least thirteen others, were thus
held in custody at the Y. M. C. A. by the state oiicers, they were
questioned by the federal agents intermittently over a. period of
six days during which they saw neither friends, relatives, nor
counsel. Incriminating statements from six of the petitioners were
the fruit of this interrogation. To determine whether these state- Thereupon, on the same day, the sheriff on his own initiative
the jury regarding the admission of these incriminating statements: There
has been allowed for your consideration certain statements, confessions, or
admissions alleged to have been made by some of the defendants. It is
primarily for the Court to determine whether or not such statements are
admissible for your consideration but it is wholly for you to determine how
much weight or credit you will give to these statements. We shall as-
sume as facts, therefore, only the testimony of Government witnesses and
so much of the petitioners evidence as is uncontradicted.
2 Under Tennessee law an oicer may arrest without a warrant when a felony
has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable grounds for believing that
the peron arrested has committed it. Michie's Code 938! $11536. But
willful destruction or power lines is only a misdemeanor under state law. Id.,
§ 10B63 B!.I __
t... G , _ Q _92
6 Anderson at oi. vs. United States.
which came before the jury as an organic tissue of proof can be
severed and given distributive signicance by holding that they
had a major n-e in the conviction of some of the petitioners
and none at all as to the others. Since it was error to admit these
confessions, we see no escape from the conclusion that the convic-
tions of all the petitioners must be set aside.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice JACKSON and Mr. Justice Rurnnocn took no part in
the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Ram dissents.Anderson at al. vs. United States. 3
ments were properly admitted in evidence, it is necessary to
particularize the circumstances under which each confession was
made.
Simonds. Simonds was arrested by two deputies on the after-
noon of Wednesday, April 24th, and taken directly to the Y. M.
C. A. After spending the night at the county jail, he was ques-
tioned by one of the federal agents for about an hour Thursday
morning at the Y. M. C. A. The questioning was resumed at
two oclock in the afternoon by three agents who talked with him
for about two hours; at seven oc1ock that evening he again
questioned by two agents for another two hours. On Friday
morning he was questioned for about an hour. And on Satur-
day he was questioned at three different periods throughout the
afternoon and evening, each period lasting about half an hour.
He was again questioned on Sunday afternoon for about an hour
by two agents, one of whom described what occurred then as
follows: We went over the entire cue with him, and pointed
out the discrepancies in his story and the information we had
developed on investigation, which knocked down his alibi, and
out of a clear sky he said well, I want to tell you I am guilty. "
One of the agents thereupon took Simonds written statement.
Hubbard. Hubbard was arrested by two deputies on Wednes-
day evening, April 24th, and taken to the Y. M. C. A. He, too,
spent the night in the county jml. He was questioned by four
agents at the Y. M. C. A. on Thursday afternoon for about two
hours. Two of the agents questioned him again that evening for
about two hours. At two o'clock Friday afternoon he was ques-
tioned for about forty-ve minutes; at ve oclock he was ques-
tioned for another hour and a half. At seven-thirty Friday eve-
ning two agents questioned him for two more hours. He was
questioned intermittently ml day Saturday. One agent. questioned
him for periods of fteen minutes two or three times during the
morning and afternoon. Another questioned him for half an hour
in the morning. A third agent talked with him for another two
hours sometime during the day. And he was questioned again for
about twenty minutes at six o'clock in the evening. He was not
questioned on Sunday, but he was present during the questioning
of Simonds by the federal oficers that morning. After hearing
Simonds admit his guilt, Hubbard also confessed.
Woodward. Woodward was also arrested on Wednesday after-
noon, April 24th, by two deputies who took him rst to the
rt Q ' Y" -l * Q oi
4 Anderson at cl. vs. United States.
Y. M. C. A. and then to the county jail. He was questioned by
four federal oicers for about two hours Thursday afternoon, and
questioned again for another two hours that night. The officers
questioned him for about fteen minutes. on Saturday. On Sun-
day he was brought into the room where Simonds and Hubbard
were, and upon being confronted with their confessions, also con-
feed. On Monday the otoers spent about ve hours, from 11
a. m. until 2 p. m. and from about 3:30 until 7 or 7 :30 p. m.,
questioning him in order to reduce his confession to writing. The
manner of Woodward in giving his statement was thus de-
'-cribed by the agent who questioned him: He had considerable
diiculty in recalling the details, he said his mind was not exactly
clear on all of it, it took a good while in order to get the details
of it, of how it happened, everything in the chronological order
of events, and he also complained on occasions that his mind was
befuddled in making the statement, upon relating about what
he had done, and that is the reason it took so long to do it. It
took the morning and the greater part of the afternoon."
Rhodes. Rhodes was arrested Sunday night, April 28th, and
spent that night in the jail, sharing a cell with Woodward, Hub-
bard, Simonds, and Queen. He was questioned for about two
hours by two agents on Monday morning, and then confessed.
Queen. Queen was arrested by two deputies on Sunday after-
noon, April 28th, and was taken to the Y. M. C. A. After spend-
ing the night in jail, he was questioned for about an hour the
following night by three agents. Upon being confronted with
the confessions of the others, he admitted his guilt. _
Bellow. Ballew was arrested by three deputies on Tuesday
afternoon, April 30th, and taken to the Y. M. C. A. He was
questioned there for about an hour by two federal oicers. After
spending the night in jail, he confessed the following morning.
The question for decision is whether these confessionsre-
pudiated when those who made them took the witness stand at
the ti-ial-were properly admitted in evidence against all the peti-
tioners, including Anderson and Ellis who did not confess. In
the McNabb case we have held, 317 U. S. , that incriminating
statements obtained under the circumstances set forth in that
opinion cannot be made the basis of convictions in the federalAnderson ct cl. vs. United States. 5
courts. The considerations which led to that decision also govern
this case. The detention of the petitioners by state oicers was,
as the Government concedes, in violation of the Tennessee statute
which provides that No person can be committed to prison for
any criminal matter, until examination thereof be rst had be-
fore some magistrate. Michies Code 938! § 11515. The courts
..£ lI'92..-.........,.,,..-. ..-..1..J- .-Hi-Q.--..-.1.-92 .~ .-.9292rvq-gnu-92.-vi Al! -Ll-in -u- Lil-.H~;n L1-Ul. 1Cl.ll1t7bhUC ULHUI-I ulil-Ll1Jl|l.-lUl.|lD UUDI-I-92tl1ll92-C UL Ll-I-I-B 1J1ULlIUll-v1ULl- I-|_'f
its law ofcers. See Polk v. Stole, 170 Tenn. 270; State ex rel.
Morris v. National Surety Co., 162 Tenn. 547.
Unaided by relatives, friends, or counsel, the men were un-
lawfully held, some for days, and subjected to long questioning
in the hostile atmosphere of a small company-dominated mining
town. The men were not arrested by the federal oicers until
April 36th, and only then were they arraigned before a United
States Commissioner, except for Ballew who was not arraigned
until May 2nd or 3rd. There was a working arrangement between
the federal oicers and the sheriff of Polk County which made pos-
sible the abuses revealed by this record. Therefore, the fact that
the federal oicers themselves were not formally guilty of illegal
conduct does not affect the admissibility of the evidence which
they secured improperly through collaboration with state officers.
Gambino v. United States, 275 U. S. 310, 314; Byers v. United
States, 273 U. S. 28, 33-34.
The Government urges that, even if the confessions are held
to be inadmissible, only the convictions of the six petitioners
who confessed should be reversed. 'The prosecution rested prin-
cipally on these confessions and the testimony of an informant,
Freed Long, whose credibility was under severe attack. The
incriminating statement of each petitioner implicated all the
others, including those who did not confess. To be sure, the
trial court devised a procedure under which the confessions were
introduced without mention of the names of the other persons
implicated. But their names were in fact revealed in the course
of the cross-examination of the confessing petitioners. So also,
while the trial judge appeared to admit the confessions only
to be used against the persons who made them , his charge bound
the jury to no such restricted use of the confessions. On the
contrary, from what the trial judge told them the jury had every
right to assume that in ascertaining the guilt or innocence of
each defendant they could consider the whole proof made at the
trial. There is no reason to believe, therefore, that confessions
' I
1 .
-».,..-- -- ..55-,_-@ .
11...
§_92-M
1.
1
3
énf .
*I
ii
i
92
x Supreme Court, taking up the first
=,
3f
-v
P not have been convicted of treason
1 l'1t.he treasonous act or giving aid_ 4. >- .<.J l
is. .1.-'-' i
92
Hi1ii.Q0"RT.WEliiH3 0
FlRST'lREA$UlWASE_1
ililtlt oi Framers of consiiiu-.
iion_Described in Arguments
appealing Cranier Conviction l
sun TUmi$_0_N event sari
Defense Counsel Say: Meeting,
J With Nazi Saboteun Was 92
iiot Actually Traitorous f
By Jar warn -
Sleds-ltn'l'Is2Is'|II'oas '1-nus. '
WASHINGTON, Nov. 8-Tllel,
tn m its history, heard
arguments today that framers of
the Constitution deliberately made
This was done, it was pointed -
lout by H R. Medina, counsel .
for ,A.ntho ramer who is appea1-
ing his convic on n lower courts
l .l ibof giving aid and comfort to two .
of the Nazi sahoteum who arrived
y submarine in 194.2, by limiting
the meaning of the crime to acts
in which aid and comfort was given l
to the enemy. 1
, The founders of our Government,
he declared, rejected the historic
English view that mere attempts
lat helping the enemy was treason,.
;He argued that his client should
since he never actually committed
and comfort to the enemy.
Charles Fahy, Solicitor General,
, in supporting the Government's
"case against Cramer, assertedzlthat the writers of the Constitu-
' tion had narrowed the meaning of
treason, but he held that acts
which miiht seem innocent lm
lthernselvss might be proved to he
an integral part of a treasonous
i act. He held that the overt acts,
on which Cramer was successfullyprosecuted in two lower courts inconvictions of alleged traitors ex- 1-
tremely difficult in order to pro- f_
tect citizens of the new Republic ,7
lfrom false charges and perjury. Y.
4»-»-_ T_.l_. .
Overs-Ants-'14" °°%.. -
Two of these overt acts" had
to do with meetings between Cra-
mer and two of the Neal saboteurs
whohsdheen1sndedtroxnasnb-
marine near Jacksonville, lI'ie..-andwere executed tollowingra militarytrial in Washington. amer was
charged with meeting Wernerf
Thiel and Edward John Kerlinm,
the ssboteurs, in June. II42, in two
New Yk restau.-...':t:, me '!.e.'tr..
Oaks Inn on Lexington Avenue ,
and Thompson's Cafeteria on For»
ty-second Street between Lexing-
ton and Vanderbilt Avenues.
H1-.Medina argued that the Gov-
ernment failed to show what tran-
spired at these meetings and that
the occasion could not constitute
an overt 92ct" of treason. Thetestimony of the witnesses, hesaid, did not disclose the subject
of conversation between Cramer.
and the Nazis and therefore it was
not proved that actual aid and
comfort to the enemy had been
given. ,
Mr. Fahy argued that further.
testimony offered in Crs.mer's trial
proved the treitorous design of the
meeting! and that they had been
adequately shown to be overtl
acts" of treason.
Issue of it Witnesses Is Raised
This led to a lively discussion of,
the constitutional requirement that
two witnesses must testify to the
same overt act. Mr. Medina held
that the Government had failed to
produce the same two witnesses for
each meeting, covered by the,
alleged "overt act. Mr. Fshy, in-1
stating once more that the overt
act" must be considered as only a
l part of the act of treason, main-l
tained it was not necessary for the!
same witness to bear testimony for
.92 all the parts.
. The Solicitor General empha-
sised that only the overt act ;
must M emu by two .1.-itr.eeses and
whether it constituted an act of
treason might be proved by the tes-
timony of other witnesses.
This prompted a question from
Justice Felix Frankfurtur whether;
suchan interpretation of the latter
might make it possible for s. per-jured witness to defeat the con-
stl;,u,ticu,a,b lifeguard one-see by!it1- . Y:
I - - '..
.";»'J.3*,.*~>f
l§
5
1;-
4-
-_|
*5.
. .
I:J
I
stT
ji
i
E
5
F
l the two-witness provision. =
PP_ _ ,., ». - i, I T '. ._ ,, 11 -i,__-_n, - _»'-- , - _. =_,.!.._,?}_ili'i-*.,lid"'*.;;Y'92'_ .-.2 . _ .3-t. p p ,_' ' - 7" '- .-: ' _ ". _ -'.H' '.;_-:.:.._ I . {Y4 4 a 31 I. -.3 rr " vs 4
I
t
-
Z
u
e
-
14-
W
course law
1351. when the first English
Till If-ltllil. the Statute
sons, was enacted. Mr. Medina de-
clared that the English in the
course of the history had tended
to stretch the literal meaning of
their isir to make an attempt at
treasonecrimeasevellastheer
Ill deed of treason,
Proteovellevioelelted
This idea, he said, had been "ab-
horrent" to the founders of the
country and they had gone to [rest
pains to protect the citizenry from
promiscuous charges of treason.Another overt mg chargedagainst Cramer had do with
false testimony which he gave to
FBI agents. Mr. Medina held that
this misinformation. which Cram-
er later admitted was false, was
not treasonous. although it might
have left the defendant open to
other charges. Cramer, in givq
false information about hiri
and the German agents, had iii
"given aid and comfort to the Q-
emy, Mr. Medina declared, stale
the FBI men had already obtained
the facts and were not fools if
the misstatements. - '
Wltil umtreamne i:h?ie::t.i'.,
tenced to fortydive years Q -,5$10,000 fine. . .
Following oral arguments. Chief
Justice Harlan F. Stone held the-
@180 011811 i Ilve Cramer's coun-
sel the opportunity to file a reply
to the Government's 1'£I.l!1]_l'I1g1'92t,
Mr. Medina said that he planned
to have this done Wlt.@_.|_1gk.
Ni
ii
l
I
i
l
I
1
4
1.a.»
liar.
- -_._-='a,.:;_LV._ ,
:__.
.-
1r-- '-1!
--i-a|
i-11.-
/ 92
92_/i I- ' ~ f In g l d'_ *"g"A '-'i'l e".' *ff:-¢e, ii._Suprient§ 1Y0 4-,i]_psets Cro'ntef§_;Nqturq1ized' Germa '
i _.- as as ulellllal
sson~'a1issdoer:ssn.
$ °Q és% §s¢m _~
1
-1
ii?
ta
*.i1s.ooo-were majority opinion m92
Thet1ecislonII5to4.with
Justice Douglas reading a vliorous
10.000-word dissent which declared
the maJoritys interpretation oi the
Constitution makes "neither ood
sense nor good law." He said it
."makes justice truly blind.
Justice Jackson delivered the
the ease, the first treason convic-
tion ever considered by the high
tribunal, He said the constitution-
al safeguards were written by
founding fathers who felt duty
bound to guard against injustice,
ieveu to their enemies.
Cramer, New York City boiler
worker, drew a 45-year sentence on
the charge that he aided tire of
eight pies who ca1n_ ___ -
1942 re caught.
toned. '
Cramer, who served with the
»German army in 1918 and came to
this country in 1925, was natural-
ized in 1936. He had kno oneoi the saboteurs, Wemexahiei,
while Thiei lived in this country,
and the spy looked him up. Theymet twice, once wag the second
,saboteur, Edward eriing, was"
present. Thiel turned over to.
amer his money belt with $3600
t keep for him.
Under the Constitution, convic-,
t n of treason requires two wit-__- -. .51.;
iwere executed and two _;1_112gj5_-_
--- ~thetwoneetinp,at_'...s,1...- i sans
Has
men drank and taihed
Ne Two-Iitaec Proof -
But the inaioritr opinion said:
There is no two-witness prool of
what they said nor in what lan-
mace they convened.
»"1'here is no showing that
C mEE.'El'_=_5hsotsnl..1lER=1HlIW
I!EBEilJun...HQ&lmdat
I=¢1j=_<§___ig shoal ror_,ths1.J=et_in
hli 1- -pI-I__<:__§_h__ge|.- . . Crs.|u%nished em no shelter. . . . e
is no evidence
encouflQ'éii1'Ft'it or counsel."
The 'wE8Ie purpose of the con-
stitutional provision, the court said,
is to make sure that treason con-
victions shall rest on direct proof
of two witnesses "and not on even
s little imagination."
And without the use of some
imagination it is dimcuit to per-
ceive any advantage which this
meeting altorded to Thiei andiKerling." '
Jackson was joined by Justices
Frankfurter. Roberts, Rutledge and.
Murphy in the majority opinion.
Douglas, with Chief Justice Stone
and Justices Black and'Reed con-1
curring, said that Cramer wasl
shown consciously and voiuntar-
ii! to have assisted the enemy
propaganda program and his trait-
orous intent was then and there
suiciently proved."
Douglas asserted that the major-
ity opinion "is written on a hypo-
thetical state of facts, not on the
facts presented by the record." _
Conference with saboteurs here
on s mission for the enemy, Doug-
las continued, may be wholly ade-
quate as overt acts under the trea-
son ciause. They were proved by
two witneses as required by the
Constitution.
The majority opinion conceded
that it is not ditiicult to nd
grounds upon which to quarrel
with this constitutional provision.
"Certainly the treason rule,
whether wisely or not, is severeiy
res l.C ve. _ . ."_' concluding, Iaehen "H1
eonuivsd
it."
n yesterdal the
declined to hack down on
decision to review the Georgia
rate case. it refused a plea
20 defendant railroads tor
oi its 5 to 4 ruling t
may proceed with its t
discrimination against
UL .
It upheld the Nltllill L150!
tions Board in ruilnl 1-ill? I
pony could not prohibit em-
yes lrom solicit-1118 B11191! Bl
hip on its premises our
nworkinl time, or prevent we
oi union buttons in a P1111! B
unionized.
W
r
0Ml.
Hr.
Hr.. . IMd
CoHey____
Hr. Glavin
III. add_ZMr.FaHD1_
Hr. Rosen_
Mr. TracyCarsoq
Egau___
Hendon_
Mr. Penningt:
Mr. Quinn Ts
Mr. Nease
um Bandy:Hr.
llr.
llr.
1:1}
.¥%~"'l_-_'
i- 1 .91,7. -
¢
I I
,3
;,-
7%:
----.-_a* ~ - fi"$'f 5"?r=--=~. 1
'- . " - _ J '-I :'_".-5'. --'1'. .~
0- i-:.';..~~ -, ' 1&4 "-l- =1 #0 1* -Q, b. . . I ' V r a I .
Tn:":.£Y:'a;t-.,. _- A
1 t , -_§"r»-"»I~:r'-".-'."'I1»-
- '»_I-"»-~--- ~
._ f-'-". - i
an. .P". '.":-"".';."'-t-1;? --I
'13 . if ._"f .'
--i '~92 aieadc m§.._;_..e
- ~.1i.11F*liT""-'*'*I'1 '_,
cl iEf'i¥'I'J;'-!'-F117-I-1
preaentatih Willim L.
son-Ior hie leaderlhip oi the Na- 3.;
ticnli Oiclaana Cioaunittee taeieet
_Harry S. 'Iruman_P1faaida|i, and
for raining more funds for the
President! campaign than any
other ainlie individual. i
Mn. Eleanor 'IooaeveitI'or her "
work in directing the United Na-
ttona Committee that drew up theom Charter oi Human
I, E. Walker-Por building the I
Trb-State Bank of Memphis. and p
directing its growth into a ltronl economic force in that area. 92
Judge J. Waitee Waring-For up-; -
holding the right of Negroes toi '
vote in the Democratic primaries Z
of South Carolina, which results in
Negroes taking an active voice in
the government in that State in
1948.I
Alice Coachman-Olympic highf
Jump champion and only Ameri--
can woman to win a rst place in
track or eld events la the inter-92 S
national games.-__ - _' 1
Mrs. Harper Sibley-President
of United Churchwomen, for heri
ght against segregation in the
armed forces, all Federal estab-;
lislunents and ih the Protesta|'1t~_
churches. "_ :_:_ ,
Levi Jackson lffnlrod '
- Levi Jackson;aI_he am Negro m
captain a varsffy team at Yale _
Univenity, and the Yale tootba1l1
team. for choosing him captain £01-1*
1849, and moat valuable player for1948. J 92
S I 1 Ge
nited States Supreme
a re r1 we covena
o behalf of the Department _
Justice. .
E. W. Montague CobbFirst
Negro vice president of the Amer-
ican Association of Physical An-
thropologists and the Anthropo-
logical Society of Washington for
his research attackinl myths of
;l|:.iaiAL-racteriatica.ii-1-I
941..1_ - ' '7-ab» "'7. J 4 *5 " -- i
. V; _ Y.--r-or-"e -. * has +'=-"*-"3 " *3 ' ' "-"}"'* "" ""* :53?.-,.-:-5~:" 1: 92--~'-1 "-M -l" "* 4.. .,T,?¢ -¢u-i?-If ' ~14 ma - -.. -,, . |-. '- "1.--' ;'-¢ - - i
-.- we 1*-=v,'.*' -Txl!,,.?~>1"e~¢~¬-,5-ii.I "" '_ :2.-1-.-ellli-e--__ _ : _Li,_-_..92_nJ~i K la ,
--.--re- - '*.'."',"II"I 1. ~ <
- 1
. . ".'____g*<jQ_-.f_,y:_'»
o - mad-
ga n? ' S ll" I
' ~-» IIIIII ll-|-I101-'.:
. ~ -eh,-ml _ '|_.d,,. _ .-w-|a
- _~..Z*.-.-.-_'TT'1Z - ' . l ""'
"".- . -i W In .1
I '-, | -__|,.| ,|9292 _. »__:_e_ u I
. ' Columnl -nu -- - -
.'mr':v1.'.-:.'="'I='a':.-r-.;" | _-,| up . . 92r' .- I
* .-- or
Alderman d I. Hill--for
his Qurage in entering politic-a in
Q Southern State, and his auecesa
in rallying Neiro and white voters
to elect him an alderman in Rich-
mond. Va.- _ é t
Organizatioaz -SAmherst Co ego chapter of PHI
Kappa Pei intercity for its cleci
alon to accept suspension from the
iraternl the th1' llr. Tildi
Ir. Clegli
Glarin S
add Z
Ila. Tracy
Mr. Egan
Hr. Gurnea
llr . Barho_______1/ llr . Iohrin-nip
Hr . Penning ton___
Neal_ r. Quinn la:n:n__
Ilr. e
Ilia:
tyra r anouatinmrethatnoactorperforma -
a Gibbs, a Netm brother. whee in the United Staten Wh
aegre tion la practiced on
1 rming . 5- or in the audience¢ t - - °*==*=*"t=*= -1'"in all phase! of American life. _Y*-_-rinilntiazlm
canto F V tol -»- E 1 F01 upreme | I &"declaring unconstitutional the law preparinl 9 I in cits:
banning marriage between whitcaiinand nonwhitealin that Statev ieivil llticai l a1 ht!-Univeraity of A1-kansaa-For ad-_ National __Bui1dera Associationmittlng a Negro student to its med- and W. _H. Aiken or Atlanta, la.-zical school on a nonsegregated For the1rtalcl92;oc;c§e;;ii: §
hula, - . icommerc a n '
mi ";:;*"<-2" ;°:::**:'**":;r "::.i:.:::.*.:~.- tion the at s I9 -- °1i E" 3layil hare the facts. _B'ures and.-For -Pl°92'1"! tm'°'-13h thilrthttechniques of systematic discrtmitime attendance records :11; _B
ination aiainat Negroes in Wash- winning of the world c mp"!!!-
i.n,|ton,D.C. imp that Negroes brinl additional
Actor: Equity--For its eortato stature to the nationaidw
_ e V§t__/3513/q'/17'
%.92'92'*3
WASHINGTON POST
Page s¬'Cto:§|'6'f"RE¬6¬oEE>hm
44 MAR 1]. 1949
______ _______ ___,_
P
t;,__.-.::,;f-<-Tar .V. ' ' ;:'r',4P."J;*;..
. ;~e;:_=.92 1-"'0"-.i0
3*}. .1,-C?*-. i,
- -.5-'1-1: .
,,., .;~' .1.-. -_-.-.@_-,0. ._;,. ..~_-I-.. -,$3. ... » -:r', _-;,,.I'.0; , .92 .~,-4
34',-.I,v.:;:'.:-;..,; _';- 5.:-:_;
311-. 1 _ ,_ _ ,,_-... .
.. 1;
1 _w
- .-'-. .3,~_'.,- an *1»._.~,.-...-_-_
- ._1;:._'__ _,_., = _1-.F___._ _. ,-_
' - r--- 1..92 V»-. 1 .7_A___..--;__ -_, _ .
1 l
= *0 1* '
-5--ii--~ -4351.7.-nwluili-~
._ -. -..¢._..-....,FEDERALK§UREA{j. "HON
1'13 »" - 7 IL i " J - .~ 'rrn.: . .... / -Y -'9--»-_~ A FQR.EIGN"]INSPIREDqGI'115Pf9 '.- 1 °"*" ~ .
- 0 .~ N4I3I[C_A_.H_MIBQg5I§ W -._-.3 ." N _"- ."'~ 0 R .
. rmm mrvxszon 0-A-<1 .. ---~'---.-- .- . - '-
n
_'_Ii~ ,- _ AFPIOVID i1
f 5 _
4.-n___mwm . _ . ._ 100-8576FormNo.1 * - "-"_ _'_,T*'"5¢192Sl:0n:a|uA1-|p;-|- yusann = R K" - _ . _' -=- »-.WV Hr ' - _ _ _ TONI 1,161. yvggf -_-_92 '
' 0=~ -: -I .1:..- - -.,, DATIWHIN ' . . . #71" .!§»-; ' T' 1 ""'-'*" 0 _ - - , _, __ - - - . M _ oI -3 Ev . A ». - ll - , D. C ' _ 2 5 95% T
, ,_*_; ,7 _ I . 92 5' _.;;;:. - ,~'
1 ,,_M,A_.._,____ 01- 0 - _ !
~'-"'<""'0""'"-'0""'* _ - 0- é - . 0 Li z-:r»_:r'-"L;-..1SY.'NOPSlSOF.FAC"l"5= é - '. 1' em; d 1 I92 < _ _ V __ F Curr eve opmenta seq forth raga;-@138a 0 » ""92_ iiii %i°£°.rE°_S§if _1=%°=_=?==*9=:@_*92=1=1-1====. C92l£SSmED B1? _|' "7?" ""' Y ,"_f_° * ¢5°°T* F191-Q Diviivn.- A p;_cu92S$iE[ __ - _ ~.% '0 ~-
£11, Ilwtmnnrxow coninxruzazzu rs usc1.;.ss1= 1:1
~ »~ 2102?: vans su0w1!_./
e£9.F.R!1§!"
nm-ea'u_r110 100 1355b '
Re ort 0 bpecial Agent, "-"ted my 19, 0,?1 _ On; D Q_ /
0 DE1*13F5= ' ATHASEINETONL 1>.*0l
_, ._ I ~ _92 _ ._92 _ - . y _:¢ I ,. -.r_ __ -92 " ' ' '' u L, ' _ " '- 0 V:, _92 foreign impgegeggwtmmuion ages ;:xB're11,t 6-Qvelolments in regard to _= ' ' Field Division 1'0: the 100 E new Negr°°° 1 "'h° "=°111ns=<>n' " °m 9° 191+5, June 20, 191+ . Q1. nfnlnn Pi... .111 n;-If mi-I-:11;0 .11-92-r 92-II-Q :ETg_Iv92:| r|w| :-" 7 °"~BY Fm-NIZATIo;¢s
I * * 'A] A ' _, X-3_WW._ _1%I$1_ '110LJ:1'1cu. m50cIATx05a .92Q;;:;;<_ -L,
III:u92|.A4il"nrT' L'l JV" . " "' '" W -'
V my-nan 7*-" nonotwnn-:m"rHuIu-Acm** .;' _ 0 04000440.! -;¢.~+<1- _ ~i:
w 9? ..
.1 ,-m.» he
E~*.-';'-*: '. _»__ V ITL3? d 2
1
P
n
_ ti!
92-'=.- 1!l&'::.92_ -_I ' " 92
vial?-F-V._;
evrro 1oo-ea-rs '"1 92- _y'-*-- "
't- "'-u . ' - x 1 '. '_
I ' ¢
92.¢ ~a_ e
Conferences 92 ' ' -wk so i 1 "
I i l D A According to an article in the weenie nh imerican on lay 26,
x ¥.].j'§;<§1,5, the 82nd annual session of theWaehingt9 e dist Conference was held
during the previous weak at the lmes Church in ashington D. 9. At that con-ference, a resolution was adopted which requested q Hospital in lash-
ington abandon its policy of racial discrimination ag t patients. This
resolution was adopted following the report of a conference committee on the
incident which occurred on December 22, 1944, when a young colored mother was
refused admittance to the hospital, and had given birth to a bow on the side-
walk within one-half a block of the hospitaI|.'¢'
Gonsideration was given to the appointment of a committee to investi-gate treatment of colored people in almethedist hospitals, including Union
llemorial Hospital in Baltimore, Ihere staff does not accept colored bed
patients. _ - i '
OHARLEI CHEROKEE reported in the Chicago "Defender" on J1me 9, 1945,
that meTa 16 of Negro Democrats gathered in the District of
Columbia on June 8 and 9, 1945, that the members had for consideration a memo-
randum which they took up before the election in 191,4, in which they asked for
various things but had not received very many oi them Moreover, the Gomci].
was considering an inquiry to Representative DAWSON of Illinois to ask him why
he had not taken a more active position in party leadership.
Cow-ts
in editorial appeared in the Iashington "Tribune" on -Tune 2, 1945, '
entitled "Supreme Gourt Blunder," which stated in part as toilets:
The United Court struck a blew at democracy byrefusing to review O of Ire. cnam-exm, 2313 First en-eta,
H. I., who is seeking thron the highest co permission to remain
in her first street home, which she purchased last year. Comeoi for
Hrs. IIAIES are planning on seeking a re-hearing before the highest
tribunal. If that fails, llrs. HAIES would have to more from and sell
her heme solely because she is a member of the negro race."
"Equal Justice Under Ls! at cribed on the Supreme| Q -$3 was L i
3 1
92
- . B
?92 * t~ - c 1 , 3
a
-i-§¢"._--~'
.51 ._.92..
11 - ~s
.1 '-
...._..l
5-_ .4;-.*-"F __ d
, _..;_=
' Q13 pf
rt-.', 31,.- s
r~ 2
I92 x
92 92 lK_ :, Q11!:/f;M10100-8878 {A
0o1n't'|illneverhorendereduntilthenindso£
side inits chsnhere have 110" 4racialtdgoiny-' _
Itisereportedinmehicego enderlon§l'nne9,l9I.5,thaton '
um date the S ___whd the ;'- of the states to make deliberate
tokenplacemntofneproeson jurypenols sndrensinnithinthelen Ina
six to three decision the highest court refused to set aside the murder con-
viction ot L. Lid, Dallas negro, on a plea that only one negro "wen per- '
nitted to serw?'oh the grand iury which indicted him. IIKEES contended that
this would deprive him ct his constitutional rights.
- m wrote an
June 9, 1945, in h, in referring
follotss ,Pittsburgh "Courier" on
sse she stated in pert as
7 A disgraceful chapter was added to the bed record which the '
SupremeGo1n'thasheenpilJ.ngup£oritseltof1atehyitsro£usa1
. lest reek to review the District of Columbia Court of Appeals
decision upholding a racial covenant. For almost thirty years negro
lawyers have been fighting the injustice of the restricted covenant,
and as fer as the historical and social development of the problem
is concerned never was orderly democratic progress as ready for favor-
able and final judicial determination as non." -
' HcEE1iZIEpointedoutthattheS11prewsGo1ntdidnotriskinthel_'£B
case an-itten opinion but that the District court of 1pp6£L'l.l had dared to dis-
cuss the social aspects of housing restrictions hased on race. This opinion
was rendered W Chief Justice GROIER of the Appeals court, and llcIRZIE concluded
ss follows in commenting on GBONEBJS decisions";
"The highly tentative feeling the Chief Justice has concerning
' the ultimate ahi]_i'lw of the races to live together in peace is a
dangerous Fascist explanation for one with so great an obligation
to the Constitution of the United States." It demonstrates hon stern
__ __ e battle still. lies ahead for negro leadership.
Gove t enoie _ . _
It was reported by in the chicago |'Dgf8-drl on
-.- -.-- -.--H... 74 -7 _ ,,..q_
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
__ TH|QcAll:O|0mA1'IDA1',qE! IORK nuzno
- Q
. =-4~-- »
iv:-~.~+l<.=
_ ;=~:.'-_,,;1~1_=- -{v' "
11?; Y*::'_=g#'
-'-2.'.|,,,.,-"4;
-.-.. 92 .
92-4
,1 .. _
1. -1-
- .
--__.l4 RIXTIAXAT DATIWHQ FIIOOIOIIHICIIHADI IXIIADIII
rrz YORK 1° 9 12 /6-3, 15, 16,
1'r1-1.1; E E
J IAIZQVL.» I1vC92 ,
CLILPU . LIN CLPEMTIVE PUBLISI-IING SOCIHTY, INC.L aECJPITY - C
SYNOPSIS OF FACTS
_.a'
I
I
-4
I-
-F-' '~
Pbvruarv, 1%? to Tfcvwber, 1948 to Shrr trendsof paper, set out,
xmmrxw conrl SQ;rmmu IS uucmssxrng " " Classled hp-I.I.I§gL.
¢=-PL **F1E 5"°'| Beclassy on MM $13 7/sagW S 51¢ @999
""" 0 N01 wnrr: m -r|-ulna: nucmao~lT5[éS+ 1/ "500 FORWARDID: N CIIAIII__ _ HEX DF STROYE _I
i=3-£4¬EB.J¢§,I ***@mJ*@*
V .
Q,
kJE192-4 4--4
,_ I
-.- -
;é,i
an-'__i
i
1
.iY
.,, .,,. 1
1-'->1
i
'_ A
Ebl; Jr J
2--Inoe-2.166 ' ;_ /
CON HAL
"October 22
"The murder of George Polk in Greece is supeosed to have bee
committed by Communists. This is untrue. The menarchist Fbcists killed
him and are just trying to put the blame on the Communists.
"October 26
" Article by A. Bimba!--___....-v'-
"The7upreme Court is supeesed to be unbiased. But this is not
so. Ve recall the difficulty Fresidont Roosevelt had with the Hoover-
spirited Supr0mO Court, each time a New Deal measure came before it. The
Supreme Court shows itself again to be en the side of the reectienaries.
It has refused to allow Wallace's name to aepear on the Illinois ballot.
"October 28
"IHPOTANT CCNFERENCE_/
n-92.. -_n,,.._...__92--.-., 1_'l __._..1 In 4.92._.~IA._.._,.I___._ n___:1.L_
…[truncated]