« AnteriorContinuar »
with regard to anything. When that final incorporation was made, I was not any part of it at all. This was a purely defunct thing that went completely out of existence.
Senator KENNEDY. It went out of existence, but the question, I think, comes down to whether you were a part of it when it went into existence.
Judge CARSWELL. Not when it took any action, Senator. I think the record will have to speak for itself in this regard.
Senator KENNEDY. When you become a subscriber, as the article says, a director and subscriber-I am reading right out of article 8 of the incorporation-it says "the name and post office address of each director and subscriber" the number of shares of stock, and then it lists a number of names, of which yours is one--did you have any idea that that private club was going to be open or closed ?
Judge CARSWELL. The matter was never discussed.
Judge CARSWELL. I didn't assume anything. I assumed that they wanted $100 to build a clubhouse and related facilities if we could do it. It didn't work, so I got out of it and—I did join the club in 1963 as a member.
Senator KENNEDY. When you signed this, and you put up the money, and you became a subscriber, did you think it was possible for blacks to use that club or become a member?
Judge CARSWELL. Sir, the matter was never discussed at all.
Judge CARSWELL. I didn't assume anything. I didn't assume anything at all. It was never mentioned.
Senator KENNEDY. What was the practice at that time? You must have had some thought whether individuals whose skin was black could join that club or not!
Judge CARSWELL. Sir, the only time in my life I have been a member of a country club was a period of 1963 to 1966 anywhere. I have not been preoccupied with examining the country clubs' policies. I had nothing to do with it. I don't mean I wasn't aware of—there certainly were many places in this country, not only in the South but many other areas, where there have been discriminatory practices. But this did not enter into anything whatever with this.
Senator Bayh. Did you say 1963 to 1966 or 1953 to 1958 ?
Judge CARSWELL. I said the only time I was a member of a country club anywhere, as far as I can recall, was 1963 to 1966.
Senator Bayh. Then in the period during which you were a subscriber here, the matter of controversy, you were not a member of this?
Judge CARSWELL. We never had anything. It just died. It never was a country club.
Senator Bayh. Let me respectfully suggest that the purpose for the establishment of this organization, whatever it may be called, was not to go defunct. It was to accomplish a purpose.
Judge CARSWELL. I suppose that is a fair statement, Senator.
Senator BAYH. That purpose was to build a clubhouse or run a golf course and in the processes not to have to integrate according to a decision handed down a short time before by the Supreme Court of the United States?
Judge CARSWELL. That was not my purpose, it was never my purpose, I repeat.
Senator Bayh. I am sure of that. That is the way you look at it. The thing that concerns us is the reasonable question that others might doubt that that was the purpose for establishing the whole organization, particularly when you have the—I don't want to pursue this further right now.
Judge CARSWELL. All right.
Senator SCOTT. Would the Senator yield, because I think the amount in controversy here, $76 from $100, that is $24. I may say that is the biggest furor I have ever heard over $24 since the Indians sold Manhattan.
Senator Bayh. May I say to the Senator from Pennsylvania, I have the greatest respect for him, and I don't know if he has followed this line of controversy
Senator Scott. I have followed it and I am well aware the press deadline is noon.
Senator BAYH. I am afraid that statement doesn't become the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania.
Senator Scott. I am well aware it doesn't. I will be glad to withdraw the statement.
Senator Bayu. That is all right. I might want to say I could care less about the $76. I think we are talking about a broader principle. That is—I think the Senator knows what it is.
Senator SCOTT. I should not have made the statement and I do withdraw it.
Senator ERVIN. I will make a statement now perhaps which I should not make. I am intrigued by the questions by my distinguished friends from Indiana and Massachusetts. While Judge Carswell was a member of the country club during this period of 3 years, approximately, the Congress of the United States passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964—not with my vote, because I was against it. That Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides in express terms that white people can have private clubs from which they exclude black people and black people can have private clubs from which they exclude white people. Every Member of the Senate who resides north of the Potomac River voted for that proposition. I didn't vote for it, but I think that was one of the sensible things in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and my good friends from Indiana voted for it.
Senator BAYH. That is correct.
Senator ERVIN. Now it came out in the press of Washington several years ago, when we had some questions like this asked concerning a nominee for the Supreme Court, that several sitting members of the Supreme Court of the United States were then members of private clubs in the city of Washington which restricted their membership to white people.
Senator BAYH. Let me suggest, to put the record straight, if I may, that I think we are talking about apples and oranges. On one side we are talking about private clubs that are formed either to have white people in them or to have black people in them. On the other side, we have a public club which is assumed temporarily, at least,
by a private organization with the basic purpose of subverting the law of the land, the 1964 act.
Senator ERVIN. Those have been investigated. Newspapermen who have investigated this have stated in the press that the records show that the city of Tallahassee was running this club at a loss of $14,000 or $15,000 a year, that the city decided to close it down, that the property was sold by the city, just like they had the right and title to sell it and that, therefore, it was no longer a public club but a private one. So I think we are not talking about either apples or oranges, I think we are talking about green persimmons.
Senator KENNEDY. The point of both questions is whether, as was stated by the Senator from North Carolina, the club was closed only because of financial reasons or was in fact closed and this corporation developed with the intention to avoid the law. Now, I think that no one is questioning whether the nominee has a right to membership in an exclusive club. That is not the question. It is this other question which I think is a legitimate line of inquiry.
I have respected and added my applause for what the nominee said in reference to his 1948 statement. I think he was frank and forthright in his comment about his present view on this question. I suppose the only thing we have now to really look at is, as he said himself in his statement, that "there is nothing in my private life nor the public record of 17 years which could possibly indicate” he is a racist, and then it continues on. I suppose the question that comes up now is whether this recent statement is contradicted in terms of his relationship with this club. I think the only thing everyone of us in the Senate or this committee wants to do is get the full facts out on this question, and also the chance to review in some detail his decisions to see whether they are consistent with the 1948 statement or the 1970 statement. I think this is a perfectly legitimate line of inquiry, and hopefully, we will have an opportunity to spend the time, which I don't think many of us have had—I know I certainly haven't-in reviewing the decisions on this question. I think this is certainly the reason why I asked the question.
The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
STATEMENT OF LEROY COLLINS, TALLAHASSEE, FLA. Mr. COLLINS. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Governor, identify yourself for the record, please, sir.
Mr. COLLINS. My name is Leroy Collins. I live in Tallahassee, Fla., where I was born and raised. I am a former State legislator and former Governor. I am a former director of the community relations service, and former Under Secretary of Commerce of the United States. I helped found the law firm of Ausley, Collins, & Truett, which has had some recognition here in this proceeding yesterday.
Judge Carswell is one of this firm's most distinguished alumni. He is not the only one, however, because we had another one in the room yesterday, and his name is Rev. William Harris. He is the rector of Emanuel Episcopal Church in Alexandria, and I hope some of you have a chance to go out there and hear him. He was in our firm at about the same time Judge Carswell was there. He left the firm to take
up the long road for qualification for the Episcopal priesthood. I don't know just what motivated him, whether being associated with that firm gave him a clearer glimpse of the kingdom or' whether he came to greater understanding of the need for the redemption of souls. I hope it was the former. (Laughter.]
Senator ERVIN. Anyway, Governor, he preaches the doctrine of redemption, doesn't he?
Mr. COLLINS. He does and does it well, sir. I commend him to you. I came here to testify in support of Judge Carswell's confirmation. I believe I know this man and I believe him to be qualified to make a fine Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
I first met Harrold Carswell at his wedding back in 1944. He was on leave from active duty in the Navy. He had been courting one of Tallahassee's finest, and the wedding occurred there in Tallahassee in that year. He went back to his duty in the Navy and, as this record shows, finished that duty and then went back to law school in Georgia.
After he had finished his law school training and a short time had passed, he came back to Tallahassee wanting to start in the practice of law there. We took him in as an associate at a salary that I think I would be embarrassed to have disclosed in this day of high prices.
I never shall forget the first case he argued. Most lawyers start down our way with cases in the justice of the peace court and then they grow and take on cases in the county court and then they go on and take them in the circuit court and ultimately, they arrive at the supreme court. This is the usual evolution of the beginning of a lawyer, training of a lawyer, experience of a lawyer.
But a day or two after Judge Carswell was aboard, I had a matter referred to me from a lawyer in Miami for argument in the State supreme court. It was a criminal case and the lawyer down there thought there was very little chance of securing a reversal. But he wanted us to try. I concurred in his pessimism, but I was willing to try. So I called Carswell in and told him I had his first case to argue, and that it was in the Supreme Court of the State of Florida. Well, instead of causing any fear or heavy concern, I remember how well he accepted the news. His face lighted up and he was ready to take that on right at the beginning of his legal career.
We did go down to the court and both of us argued the case. I thought he did a splendid job. We didn't get the reversal we sought, but we did get one judge to dissent. And he and I since have claimed that that one dissent; in that beginning case, as perhaps our greatest legal accomplishment in the practice of law, or among the greatest at least.
I knew this man well as a lawyer, both while he was associated with our firm and also after he had organized this new firm of his own. I knew him then as I have continued to know him since, as a man of untarnished integrity, a man with an extraordinary keen mind, and very importantly, a man who works prodigiously. And on top of all that, he has one of the finest and keenest senses of humor of any man I have ever known. He is a delightful man to be around in every sense.
While he was in this firm that he organized on his own, he and I took different political roads. He took off with General Eisenhower for President of the United States and I was for Governor Stevenson. I mentioned this fact yesterday to one of my good Republican friends, and he said, well, you see where he has landed now and where you have. Laughter.]
Well, I was sincere in my conviction and I have continued to be proud of everything I have done under the banners I have followed and I am sure he has the same feeling about his own record. We have continued, with it all, to be very fine friends and companions from time to time as well.
As you know from the record here, Judge Carswell moved through three Federal posts of duty in the succeeding 16 years after his private law practice and he stands now with this Presidential appointment you have under consideration. I feel strongly that Judge Carswell's appointment deserves confirmation. I feel this way on the basis of my personal knowledge of the man, first of all, but, more importantly, on the basis of the overwhelming judgment of the bar of my State, on the basis of the judgment of his peers on the bench, and, I think this is most important, on the basis of the judgment of the Members of the Senate and of this distinguished committee based upon your prior hearings and investigations.
Now, I listened to most of the questions and the testimony yesterday, Mr. Chairman, and in precious little of it did I feel that there was any substantive challenge of Judge Carswell's actual fitness and competence to serve on our highest court. There was the discussion of possible influence in cases before Judge Carswell by former clients. And this seems to me to be very remote. In the first place, he was not on the court until 5 years after he had terminated all lawyer-client relationships.
Second, there is nothing to show that any litigant has ever complained of anything like this.
Also, there is nothing to show that any lawyer has ever complained of any possible danger in this, or that any grievance committee action has ever been suggested involving any impropriety in any action that this judge has ever taken. And certainly should not a man of Judge Carswell's public record be presumed to have followed the narrow path of judicial purity absent a specific showing of contrary conduct? I think so.
Now, Senator Bayh, you brought out the story about the alleged secret oath, and I don't blame you. If I had been where you are, I would have brought this out, too. The idea, even, of a prospective judge swearing that he would not hold an act of the Congress unconstitutional, thus abdicating his responsibility to support our constitutional concept of separation of powers, is highly repugnant to us all, including Judge Carswell. I think he made this very clear in his denial which was supported by the statements of the chairman of this committee.
But most of the complaints aired yesterday and some here this morning have centered around the racial question. There was the