Imágenes de páginas

became a nonprofit corporation, and the name was changed from Capital City Country Club, Inc., to Capital City Country Club.

The CHAIRMAN. And that is the corporation!
Mr. PROCTOR. Right.
The CHAIRMAN. Any questions?

Senator BURDICK. To get the chronology straight here, this country club was established in 1924?

Mr. PROCTOR. 1924, yes, sir; by a small group of interested citizens.
Senator BURDICK. In 1935 you had money difficulties?
Mr. PROCTOR. Right.
Senator BURDICK. Because of the depression, I presume?
Mr. PROCTOR. The depression.
Senator BURDICK. Then in 1956 the city had money troubles ?

Mr. PROCTOR. Well, in 1956, Senator, yes, I guess you might say the city had financial troubles, but they were not willing to spend money on a golf course. They were not willing to build a new golf club or house.

Senator BURDICK. Then by 1956 they were a little more affluent than they were in 1935 and they took it over in 1956 again?

Nr. PROCTOR. Right.
Senator BURDICK. And that has been the continuity ?

Mr. PROCTOR. And of course Tallahassee has grown. Back in the days of 1935 I would say there were probably less than 50 interested citizens. At the time that they formed the country club, I do not know how many.

The CHAIRMAN. This corporation, to which there was subscribed $100, relinquished its charter and you got another charter?

Mr. PROCTOR. That is right.
The CHAIRMAN. And that is the equivalent operation.
Senator BURDICK. That was in August 1957?
Mr. PROCTOR. That is right. We petitioned in January.
Senator BURDICK. Is that corporation still in being?
Mr. PROCTOR. I beg your pardon?
Senator BURDICK. Is that in being today?

Mr. PROCTOR. Yes, in being today, and we have, approximately, between 450 and 500 members.

Senator BURDICK. Did Judge Carswell have any further interest after his stock was picked up in February of 19577

Mr. PROCTOR. Yes. Let's see. August the 29th of 1963 Judge Carswell became a member, and he remained a member of the club until September 7 of 1966, at which time we accepted his resignation.

Senator BURDICK. But all during these years from 1924 on, this clu was located in the same property and had the same name except it was changed to Capital City from Tallahassee in 1957?

Mr. PROCTOR. Right.
Sentor BURDICK. Located in the same place?
Mr. PROCTOR. The same place.

The CHAIRMAN. You did build a swimming pool 9 holes to your golf links, is that correct?

Mr. PROCTOR. Yes, we built the swimming pool late got the club. That was one of the first things that w little time to get it.

The CHAIRMAN. And you enlarged the golf cours


Mr. PROCTOR. Well, we rebuilt the golf course. We put in a watering system, and we have replanted our fairways, and of course we built a very nice new country club, for which we are heavily in debt.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further questions? (No response.]
Thank you, sir.
Mr. PROCTOR. Thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Prof. James W. Moore.
(At this point in the hearing a short recess was taken.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Prof. James W. Moore.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. MOORE. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may sit down. Please identify yourself for the record and give us your background.



Mr. MOORE. Thank you, sir. I am Prof. James William Moore, Yale Law School, New Haven, Conn.

This morning we heard a great deal about the rights of women and with much eloquence. May I say that Yale too appreciates women, and we now let women through the old sacred halls of Maury's where Louie dwells and they come singing the Whiffenpoof song. Candor compels me to say that the quality of the singing has not improved any.

I appear at my request to testify in support of the prompt confirmation of G. Harrold Carswell as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

While my qualifications are set forth in more detail in an attached appendix, briefly they are these. For 35 years I have been a student of the Federal judicial system, its jurisdiction, practice, and procedure. I hold a named chair, Sterling professor of law, at Yale University; am a member of the Supreme Court's standing Committee on Practice and Procedure; have authored many legal articles and books, chief of the latter being “Moore's Federal Practice,” and “Collier on Bankruptcy" (14th edition)

The CHAIRMAN. "Moore's Federal Practice” is in most law offices, isn't it?

Mr. MOORE. Well, I like to think so, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I think it is a standard textbook, is it not?

Mr. MOORE. Well, it is a self-serving statement, but I will make it. I think it is.

And at the present time am, in addition, counsel to the trustees, now a single trustee, of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad since the beginning of its reorganization in mid-1961.

Now, as an author, may I say that I would attach no significance to a vote by a judge denying a plea for rehearing en banc. It is just not possible to determine what promoted that vote on the substantive issues. It in a sense is something like the denial of cert. And as Justice Frankfurter once said the bar has been told over and over again that no significance should be attached to a denial of cert.

I testify on behalf of Judge Carswell on the basis of both personal and professional knowledge.

About 5 years ago a small group of jurists, educators, and lawyers consulted me, without compensation, in connection with the establishment of a law school at Florida State University at Tallahassee. Judge Carswell was a very active member of that group. I was impressed with his views on legal education and the type of school that he desired to establish: a law school free of all racial discrimination-he was very clear about that; one offering both basic and higher legal theoretical training; and one that would attract students of all races and creed and from all walks of life and sections of the country. Judge Carswell and his group succeeded admirably. Taking a national approach they chose, as their first dean, Mason Ladd, who for a generation had been dean of the college of law at the University of Iowa and one of the most respected and successful deans in the field of American legal education. And from the vision and support of the Carswell group has emerged, within the span of a few years, an excellent, vigorous law school.

For example, every member of the first graduating class of Florida State University Law School of about 100 passed the bar examination on the first go round. That makes my law school look like a member of the bush league.

From those and subsequent contacts I have formed the personal opinion that Judge Carswell is a vigorous young man of great sincerity and scholarly attainments, a good listener who wants to hear all sides, moderate but forward looking, and one of growth potential.

I have a firm and abiding conviction that Judge Carswell is not a racist, but a judge who has and will deal fairly with all races, creed, and classes. If I had doubts, I would not be testifying in support, for during all my teaching life over 34 years on the faculty of the Yale Law School I have championed and still champion the rights of all minorities.

From the contacts I have had with Judge Carswell, and the general familiarity with the Federal judicial literature, I conclude that he is both a good lawyer and a fine jurist. Called to the bar about 20 years ago he has the background of private practice, public practice as a U.S. district attorney, and that of both district and circuit judge.

And while Judge Carswell has not been a circuit judge for a long time, he has Federal appellate experience since he has sat on the court of appeals as a district judge by designation, that goes back long before he became circuit judge. In fact I recall an example of an opinion written by him as early as 1961.

Having been in each of the 50 States, and having taught in most sections of this country, I have long been impressed with this country's diversity-economic, social, moral, and ideological. In my opinion the Supreme Court should be representative of that great diversity. And I believe at this time it is highly desirable that the next Justice should come from the section where Judge Carswell was born and has lived; and that Judge Carswell should be that justice. I thank you, sir. (Biographical material submitted by the witness follows:) James William Moore. Born Condon, Oregon Sept. 22, 1905; grew up in Montana ; higher degrees J.D., University of Chicago, J.S.D., Yale University, L.L.D., Montana State University ; taught at the law schools of Utah,

Minnesota, Chicago, Texas, and Yale, and holds a named Chair, Sterling Professor of Law, at Yale.

First recipient of Learned Hand medal, 1962.

Presently a member of the Supreme Court's standing Committee on Practice and Procedure. Prior thereto was chief research assistant for the Supreme Court's original Advisory Committee on Civil Rules and then later a member of that Committee. From 1944 48 was consultant on the revision of the Judicial Code.

Co-reporter in 1937. on bankruptcy and reorganization to the International Academy of Comparative Law, The Hague.

Author of: Moore's Federal Practice; Moore's Commentary on the Judicial Code; Collier on Bankruptcy (14th edition); Moore's Bankruptcy Manual ; and other treatises and casebooks in the federal field of judicial administration, bankruptcy, jurisdiction and practice.

Of counsel for the State of Texas in the Texas "Tidelands” oil litigation; counsel for the reorganization Trustees (now a single Trustee) of The New York, New Haven & Hartford Rail Co. since mid-1961 ; legal consultant for public groups, and private lawyers.

Member of the bars of: the State of Montana ; Supreme Court of the United States; Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; United States District Courts for the states of Montana, Connecticut, and Southern District of New York, Interstate Commerce Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. You have made a very able statement.
Senator Thurmond.

Senator THURMOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any questions. I would like just to commend Professor Moore for the very excellent statement he has made here. We thank him for coming and presenting this excellent statement.

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. We certainly thank you.
Mr. MOORE. May I be excused, sir?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. Moore. Thank you.
The CHAIRMAN. Prof. Gary Orfield.
Stand up please.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. ORFIELD. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, sir. Identify yourself for the record.


AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY Mr. ORFIELD. My name is Gary Orfield. I am assistant professor of politics and public affairs at Princeton University. I am the author of a recently published book on school desegregation in the South after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Before I begin my prepared testimony, I would like to take this opportunity to speak briefly about the procedure of this committee in handling the nomination.

The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute, we are not interested in your views on the procedure of the committees. If you have something to say about this nominee, which is the question, we will hear it.

Mr. ORFIELD. I think that this is relevant to my statement, Senator, because it concerns the quality of research that it has been possible to

do in the 1 week between the time the announcement was made of Judge Carswell's nomination and the beginning of these hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no difference. This hearing is being held just exactly as all of them have been held.

Mr. ORFIELD. As you know, there was a much greater time span between the announcement of Judge Haynsworth's

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir.
Mr. ORFIELD. And the beginning of the hearings.
He was announced in August.

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir, you are talking about something you know nothing about.

Mr. ORFIELD. I was here for those hearings, Senator.

Mr. ORFIELD. It was announced in August, I believe, around the middle of August, and the hearings didn't convene until well into September.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir, Judge Haynsworth's hearings were set 1 week after the nomination came to the Senate. That was true of Mr. Justice White. It was true as I recall of Mr. Justice Goldberg. It has been true of all of them. I remember that in the case of Mr. White, we held hearings after 1 week, gave a week's notice and held hearings one morning, and had an executive session of the committee, and reported him out to the floor and he was confirmed by 2 o'clock that afternoon.

Mr. ORFIELD. In the case of a man who is very controversial and has an extensive district court record it puts an extraordinary burden on scholars and journalists to adequately review that record.

The CHAIRMAN. You are not even a lawyer?

Mr. ORFIELD. Senator, I have worked extensively in constitutional law and also in southern constitutional matters.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't believe it took. [Laughter.]
Mr. ORFIELD. Pardon ?
The CHAIRMAN. I don't believe it took.

Mr. ORFIELD. I would say, Senator, my view of constitutional law conforms much more highly with consistent Supreme Court precedents and courts of appeals precedents than yours does.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead with your testimony.

Mr. ORFIELD. All right. But I believe that in the 1 week's time so much came out that it is very important that adequate time be permitted to investigate all the ramifications of his appoinment.

This committee meets for the second time in 4 months to consider the nomination to the Supreme Court of a man whose chief qualification appears to be an abiding unwillingness to protect the constitutional rights of black Americans. My study of Judge Carswell's decisions during more than 11 years on the Federal bench clearly reveals that the President has succeeded in the difficult task of finding a Southern Federal judge whose civil rights decisions are even worse than those of the nominee so decisively rejected in November. The President has selected an obscure judge who has made no visible contribution to the development of the law and whose record is distinguished only by his persistent refusal to make the law an effective shield for black people claiming elemental rights.

« AnteriorContinuar »