xt7msb3wtd0h_14 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2.dao.xml unknown 166 Cubic Feet 381 document boxes, seven textile items, three map folders, one artwork archival material 72m2 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center.  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Frederick Moore Vinson papers Economic stabilization. Elections -- United States -- Congresses. Judges -- Correspondence. Judges -- United States. Judicial opinions Judicial process -- United States Legislators -- Correspondence. New Deal, 1933-1939. World War, 1914-1918 -- Veterans. World War, 1939-1945. Chief Justice - correspondence, etc. on cases text Chief Justice - correspondence, etc. on cases 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_163/Folder_1/Multipage1668.pdf 1946-1950 1950 1946-1950 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_14 xt7msb3wtd0h le

,L, 1'
M /<



 Supreme Court of the United States.

, , .
M cmm'a ndum.


 §uprvmv ([uuti uf tlgt lTxti’tch §1uipg

October 3, 19h6

Replying to your memorandum of October
2 as t3 8 postponement of the d te for the
reargument i, (3339» Na 5. h and 5 (American

Power & Light Co‘ Va 5.E.L.9 and Electric

Power & Light Corp. vo S.E.C.) it seems Clear

to me from the correfipondehce that the argument

should not be postponed.

14.34.13. V


 >511}!th (Enurf nf theihtihth :“Svtatna
mashinginnfi. Q'.



October 2, 1946

Dear Chief:

Answering your inquiry regarding the deferment of
argument in Electric Power & Light v. S. E. C. in View of
the matters set forth by counsel, I am of the Opinion that
the contingencies which might render the case moot through
compliance with the order of the S. E. C. are too remote and
speculative to warrant further postponement. The cases have been
on the docket for several years, and I am of the opinion that
they should be heard as scheduled.

Faithfully yours,

F. F.

The Chief Justice

'O(':‘3‘K "\QK F\€ A ‘\r\ V \Q CO C(‘QS (.30 n&encgv’\\g


 £511er (Emu-i of 111: 311mm $151525



Dear Chief Justice,

I have read carefully the correspondence you circulated in
Nos. h and 5, American Power & Light Co. v. S. E. 0., and
Electric Power & Light Corp. v. S. E. C.

I see nothing therein that should change the status of these
cases in any way. Certainly they are not moot merely because new
plans have been submitted to the S. E. C. And I see no valid
reason for postponing argument. It is well that we know the facts
contained in these letters, but we should not delay our proceedings
merely because the petitioners have submitted new plans which may
or may not be acceptable to the S. E. C. It seems to me that the
S. E. C. would do nothing to make these cases moot before our

decision comes down.

It is my View, therefore, that nothing should be done about
this matter and that the cases should be argued and decided as

As you may know, I have a peculiar interest in these cases.
The late Chief Justice assigned them to me for opinion last term,
along with the North American and Engineers Public Service cases.
I had finished most of the work onithe Engineers Public Service
and the American Power & Light — Electric Power & Light Opinions
and was about ready to circulate them when, unfortunately, the
good Chief Justice died, destroying the necessary quorum. I
have done additional work on these cases this past summer and
can get them out in short order should the decisions be the same.

With every good wish,



Mr. Chief Justice Vinson

Q)\kf>\rxg\ $1 \e A 3 a \J \P Cortes. (DO/\JQflC‘L CA1


 Supreme Court of the United States.



Justice Douglas infonns that he is

disqualified in these cases.


 Supreme Court of the United States.

Mam 0 rd mlmn.

_____________________________ , 194

7% 5 flwmnfl


7, [j
a, ng’fyi'yx v logy/{N 9:, 42.5: Co

Y» 0' \ fl \ .
V M M F; I Maid #4

W996 a, M a ”512%


J 045%! a 61% M gay/flaw


 Surp'remc Court of the United States.

M e-momnd-um.

1‘55”: 3,!”
- -. ' , ‘ : . I. ,. .
1-1 ‘3 JI‘L'C L:A 3E} T’C-CE: 1. ‘JJX .

view3 in re 3?; to the fiiififihflfl.

MW 213%



(Cotton & Franklin)

Sixty-Three Wall Street
New York 5

September 25, l9h6.

Dear Mr. Chief Justice:
The case of Electric Power & Light Corporation v.

Securities and Exchange Commission, which is No: 5 on the

'ca en er of e Court for the October Term, l9hb, was argued
in November, l9h5, but due to the lack of a quorum resulting
from the death of the late Chief Justice Stone, remains unde-
cided. It has been set for reargument on October 1h, 19h6.

I am counsel for the petitioner in that case, Electric Power &
Light Corporation. . -

The appeal involves an order issued by the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 22, l9u2, requiring the dis—
solution of Electric Power & Light Corporation pursuant to
Section 11 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act.

Since the prior argument of the appeal, a plan for
compliance by Electric with that Act was formulated after
lengthy conferences with the staff of the Commission, and was
filed with the Commission. Hearings on the plan have been closed
and the oral argument on the plan before the Commission has been
completed. If the plan is carried out, the appeal in this Court
will become moot. There is enclosed a memorandum outlining the
status of the plan proceeding in this regard.

I have discussed this matter with the Solicitor for
the Commission, who tells me that he has discussed it with
representatives of the Solicitor General's office, and both he
and the Solicitor General desire argument on October lhth. This
is entirely satisfactory to me. - -

However, I felt it my duty as an attornpy to call to
the attention of this Court, before argument, the possibility
that this case may become meet before decision. I am not re-
questing the Court to take any action with respect to postpon-
ing the argument or otherwise, but I felt that the Court was
entitled to be advised in advance of the argument of the status
of the case in this regard.


 I am sending copies of this letter to the Solicitor
General, the Solicitor for the Commission, and counsel for
American Power & Light Company, the petitioner in the companion
case, No. h in the October Term, l9u6.

Respectfully yours,_


Honorable Frederick M. Vinson,
Chief Justice of the United States,
Supreme Court of the United States,
Washington 13, D. C.


 hEflDRANDUM September 23, 19h6.

Re: Electric Power & Li ht Cor oration
v. Securities chi Egcfifingc 6ofifiI§oion

No. 5, Gctohor Term, l9h6


This appcsl involves a decision of the Circuit Gourt
of Appeals for the First Circuit affirming an order issued by
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 22, 19h2,
requiring tho dissolution of Electric Powor& Light Corporation
(harein called Electric) pursuant to Section 11 of tho Public
Utility Holding Company Act of 1955.

In connection with cubseqnont proceedings before the

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC Docket No. supi59),
union for compliance by Electric with Section 11 or the Public

Utility Holding Company Act nos proposed on July 1, 19u6, by
Electric and its parent company, Electric Bond and Share
Company. That Plan, as its first paragraph recites, is:
compromise arrived at by the management: of the two proponent
companies in the light of conferences with the staff of tho

The Plan also adverts to the appeal in tho Supreme
Court, referred to above, and says that, since tho carrying
out of tho Plan.wi11 render that appeal moot, Electric will
consent to the dismissal or the writ of csrtiorari or will take
other appropriate steps to terminate the appeal.

Tho Plan involves, as one stay in its accomplishment,
tho taranticn of a now company, to uhich arc to bo transferred
tho holdings of Electric in tour electric utility subsidiaries
Operating in Arkansas, Louisiana and Miasisaippi.. with
zcspoct- to the time when tho aissoluticn appeal will bocomo

‘mcot, Electric has informed tho CommicSion that tho appoal

may be dismissed with Eleotrio’s consent upon tho carryin3 out

'of the foregoing stop in the Plan.

Hoarings on tho Plan were closed in August, 19h6, and
oral orgumont before the Commission was held on Friday,»
September 20th. The Plan awaits decision by the Commission on
the question of whether it chould be approved.

4 The program for carrying out the Plan contemplates
that aftcr approval by the Commission, the Plan wi11 be sub»

*mittcd to a United Statos District Court for enforcement

 unfior the provisions of Section 11(3) of tho Public Utility
fio1d1n3.0ommany Act. It will than be submitted to the pro-
rotted stookholdoro of Elootr a, tnd under its provis1onn 1t
-w111 booomo orfootive when 60 or more of the outstanding
proforrod atook 1s deposited under tho Plan or when declared
.ofreotive by the proponents upon the deposit of a smalls?
poroantago of aharoa. In that oonnnction, thorororo, it 1:
relevant to point out that a quoution as to the foa31b111ty
of tho Plan exists in the proaent unsettled state or atook
,.markot conditions, baoauso the major changes in the market
thavo taken place since the o1oaing of the record in August.

. Horoor, tho staff of the Commission has agreed in
prinoipla with the Plan as a method of oomplying with tho '
Fuhlio Utility Holding Company Act, including the formation
of the now company and the transfer to it of tho o1ootrio
utility subsidiaries in Arkansas, Louisiana and m1ssiaa1ppi,
but the staff has stated that it foals such transfer Khould
Iooinoido with the taking of tho othor steps for compliance
which are provided for in the Plan. The statement to tho
Gommisaion of the staff's position, as shown by the transcript
or the oral argument before it, is set forth in the appendix
to this memorandum. For an understanding of the statomont by
Commission counsel set forth in the appendix, it may be noted
that tho ALMflO companies referred to by him are the auboidiu
arias mentioned in this paragraph.

In vial of tho foot that the Plan was workod out in
the light of conference: with tho staff of the Connianion
and in v1ou of the staff's agroomont in principle with tho
Plan, the solution of problems under the Public Utility
Holding company Act preaantod by tho Plan would seem to have
more than an ordinary chance for approval by tho Commiaa1on.

 C 0 P Y



The staff desires to address itself to only
one aspect of the joint plan filed by Electric and Bond
and Share -- the aspect which relates to the transfer of
' Electric? 5 interest in its ALMNO subsidiaries; 1.§.,
‘Arksnsas Power & Light Company, Louisiana Power & Light
Company, Mississippi Power & Light Company, and New Or»
leans Public Service, Inc}, to a newly organized holding
-c0mpany. The staff desires to make the following state-


We believe that there is nothing in the order of
'the Commission directing the dissolution of Electric which
pretents the creation of a new holding company which would
acquire such of Electric's properties as the Commission found
Jeonld constitute a retainable system or systems under the Act
rand which would thereafter be disposed of by Electric. For
Example, the Commission recently approved the formation of
a new holding company by American Power & Light Company,
which is also under order of dissolution, and permitted the
transfer of securities to the new holding company after find-
ing that the properties to be controlled constituted an inte-
grated system, subject to the requirement that American dispose

 of the securities at such new holding company within a
period of one year.

Generally speaking. under the applicable sten-
‘ Gerda of Section 10 of the Let, such transfer: to and ae-
quieitione by euch_new holding company ehould not be per-
mitted by the Commiseien unless the propertiee proposed
to be aequired are found by the Commission to constitute
a utility system or systems retaineble by such new hold-
ing eempeny under the integration standards of the Aet.
In the greeent ease, hewever, the staff of the Commie-
sien, in the light of the reservation or jurisdiction
with respect to all 11(b)(1) problems contained in the
joint plan, has no objection to those aspects of the
Jeint plan which provide fer the ereetien er a new hold-
ing company and the acquisitien by it of the ALNNO oom—
paniee prior to.a determination of ihat properties een
ultimately be retained bf sueh.holding company under
the integration standards ef the Act. Such eequieitiene
by the new holding company are to coincide with, are an
integrel part of, and appear to be necessary to facili-
tate and expedite the accomplishment of ether maid:

steps required by Section ll: the separation from eemmen


control with the ALMNO companies of Uhitod Gas corporation
and ita subsidiaries, the satisfaction and rotiroment at
Elootrio‘o preferred stocks with thoir heavy arroaragoo,
tho dissolution of mam-1c, ond tho divestment by Bond

and 31mm or its interests (prosmt and to be acquired
pursuant to the plan) in Electrio and its subsidiaries.

Io viow of the fact that the Joint plan proposes stops
thioh roprosont major stops toward compliance with Section
' 11, we beusve that the Commission should comma. that; it
- is appropriate, as an aid to the expeditious aooompliah~
ment of those steps, to defer its decision as to tho status
under Section 11 of the properties proposed to be acquired
by the new company. Under the circumstances and assuming
that tho transfor by Electric of ALHNO': scouritiea to a
now holding company as contemplated by tho Joint plan oo-
inoldos with the taking of tho othor major steps toward
oomplianoo with Section 11 oontomplatod by the pica and
notwithstanding that Section 11 problems as to the atatuo
of the new holding company and its subsidiaries remain,

the staff has no objection to tho creation of tho not hold-

mg 0 ompany o


51 Nassau Street

New York 5

‘ September 26, 19h6

Honorable Fred M. Vinson, Chief Justice,
Supreme Court of the United States,
Washington, D. C.

Res‘ American Power &VLight'Company v. S.E.C.
No.-b - October Term l9h6

Dear Sir:

We have received from Daniel James, Esq., counsel for
the appellant in the case of Electric Power a Light Corporation
versus Securities and Exchange Commission, No. 5 on the calendar
of the Court for the October Term, l9h6, a copy of the letter of
September 23, 19u6, which Hr..James sent to you.

We represent the appellant in the American Power & Light
Company case which also involves an order issued by the Securi-
ties and Exchange Commission on August 22, l9h2. That order re-
quired the dissolution of American Power & Light Company pursuant
to Section 11 of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. The case
was argued before this Court in November, 19h5, with the Electric
Power a Light Corporation case, and both are set for reargument
on October lhth. . -

Pending the disposition of the appeal American Power &
Light Company has filed with the Commission a plan for retirement
of its preferred stocks.. No hearings have as yet been held on
the plan. Should the plan be approved.by the Commission and by
a District Court the validity of'the dissolution order would be-
come moot. Whether or not the plan can be consummated will not
be known for some months.

We have discussed with counsel for the Securities and
Exchange Commission whether under these circumstances the appeal
should be arfiued as set. They.expressed the View that the legal
questions presented by the appeal should be determined. It is,
therefore, our expectation to argue the appeal on October luth

new ._ - , ’
as sefie are sending copies of this letter to the Solicitor
Generdfl, counsel for the Securities and Exchange Commission and
counsel for Electric Power & Light Corporation.

Respectfully yours,

 . .

gen-bu l7. 1!“
m min! image

n2" M‘Mflw m: 1!: Mt “mum v. -
3.12.452? m mrfinmttsm

. V 4 fi ;
it: «u m. at“: Jam:

mu Juli. Smut”, at ”will to: mam. has}: a
Miami-«1m; m “at” s. new a: 3131 law a m
mm film :5. mu. m; m gun: a»: an. moi
«rams. 3: sh mm: in 1%. .2. ~' 7 “a; _ u. *w -

- 1:. ~ .1....‘.;;~.L. 7".-:.~..;... 1"...-.-..LI33..;4; " ‘ t y ”3’ -
f. wm,. .» -" hm” W“! sum, thwflumum
with "Magnum at. than filial!» mm aim»: «to»
mat a: that j. gt, l mu» 2 gum: in“ the W
my a» Mu - , mu this mam ‘

m m x 11m: has. In” for Iowan «amt
a: m tum: . I an ., at m: mm as W min
but.» mm” ‘hhflufih- roam: mm. mam
W 8 has Geranium with ' annual "93.3“”
mm a: > ' emu-«m. my: Want in m: Moo-gr ,
mm, m Mtum mm: in» m. 3mm 1. w
is a“ was a .W m. m “min: «l: at m flux
of mm. W h was aux-mum, m We W
m Midas, is mixing.“ up» “Mann hum: a
that ”you“ mt”, hath Iy mm mm» In: by my
mm mm, a: “summit which; hm hm anyway
”I.“ ”twin.“ 3min mam: m, 13 mu», :5 m

0%. mm,m‘nwmernmmtm~

_ at i We a showman: am July 1. 13“,. m

tho plan my ram. .1: would, «I: was flat!“ mm: m:
Mt. mad my ”tummy at #31th ”’33.“ in mm-
umfiy mm M meat Mutual at in film!” to: a

4 m: a: cums-la ‘ ‘

In” many. 1: is our flu um: um u «a» 3m
pun- nim- ' -mptm» with a manual cm
m!» an . 11(3) 01‘ Nun tsuuwm cw M!
as}: a» Wt 33le pawns: to: m n a» o








order to continue indefinitely upon the docket of a reviewing
court. It should be noted that during the entire period of
contested administrative hearings and of Judicial review with
respect to orders of the Commission under Section 11(b) of
the Act there has been widespread voluntary compliance by

the industry, both in the case of companies which were con,
testing the Commission's orders and of those which have not
scene so. Electric Power & Light and other holding companies
in the Electric Bond and Share system have been no exception.
In fact it was pointed out in the Government's brief in the

, American Power & Light and Electric Power & Light cases that
a sister holding company, National Power & Light, had accepted,
without seeking judicial review thereof, a dissolution order
similar to that contested by the petitioners and had virtually
completed compliance. It was also noted that, despite the
pendency of their review proceedings,~kmerican Power & Light
and Electric Power & Light had made substantial progress
towards compliance, and that both companies had originally
announced to their stockholders that they did not intend to
seek review of the orders involved. (See Government's brief,
pp. 19—20, 22-25, 109-l24.) There is thus nothing novel in
the possibility of voluntary compliance by Electric while
contesting the Commission's order in the courts.

we believe this overlapping between compliance and liti-
gation is inevitable so long as Electric desires to litigate
the legal necessity for taking steps which it may recognize
to be desirable and in the interest or its security holders.
What appears to us to be at stake is its desire to retain
control over the time schedule for compliance. While voluntary
compliance was anticipated by Congress, it is an essential part
of the legislative scheme that effective compulsory processes
be available both as an incentive to voluntary compliance and
for use in case voluntary compliance should fail of accomplish-
ment with reasonable expedition. To that end Section 11(b)
makes it ”the duty of the Commission, as soon as practicable
after January l, 19:58,‘' to enter compulsive orders defining
the action to be required or each registered holding company
and subsidiary to comply with the statute. Such orders are
reviewable in the Circuit Court of Appeals and on certicrari
in this Court for the very purpose, we believe, of eliminating
any possible controversy prior to the enforcement stage, in ‘
the event that the Commission should find it necessary to
apply to a district court for enforcement under Section 11(d).
This legislative purpose cannot be achieved if proceedings

 - a -

on review are to be suspended, in the hope of voluntary com-
pliance, until the time when the Commission finds it necessary
to seek district court enforcement. Thus, while no stay of
the commission's order has been sought pending review, there
is a practical, if not a legal, obstacle to seeking district
court enforcement proceedings while the case is pending on

re 6' e '

It seems to us, therefore, that irrespective of the risk
or actually Jeopardising enforcement, to permit the case to
remain on the Court's calendar without a decision on the
merits would be an unwarranted departure from the enforce-
ment scheme prescribed by the Congress. This is quite apart
from the futility of speculating as to whether Voluntary
compliance may or may not precede decision by this Court.

It should not be overlooked that whether or not the case
remains upon the calendar for disposition is one of the
imponderables shich.ma. Well affect the timing of the com-
panies* efforts for vo untary compliance.

This letter has been discussed with the Solicitor General
who has authorized no to state that he agrees pith the View,
of the Cohmission that argument in the Electric Power & Light
case should not be deferred.

Since this letter was prepared I have received a copy
of the letter dated September 26, 1946, sent to you by Arthur
A. Ballantine, Esquire, of counsel for American Power & Light
company._ Since the possibility of the American Power & Light
case becoming moot before decision is, if anything, more
remote than the Electric Power & Light case, it has not
gegzed necessary to deal separately with Ir. Ballantine's

e or. .

Copies of this letter and the enclosure are being sent
to counsel for petitioners and I am also enclosing additional
copies for distribution among other monbers of the Court in
the event that this may be desired. “ ..‘ --*“ ”

5 I

Respectfully yours, V

Roger 3. Foster‘



It» mayo-«ammun-

“xv... Marxism and mm mm



am Mum (W). “than


m ‘

M m:


h lg“ “rm “2. J

3 mm
m” .. «WW :fimm

saw a: , w f mgwfimw
nwuum. unmwfl WM mwhw— mu
“magma «a m mm—w Wm :w


a. N“ m. m


mauam mmmmm
3mm mm
«mm mug» wmmu “m“

mmuw T Lw“.

“we.“ an»


x 3m.“

mm.“ m.
. um

.. m
“a a maatwmmmm— m


.w muumumumu
i“ p




 .m.Mu. . “mm“
m mafia” mm
Wm mww» _m~_nm
my,“ m m. 3%
~  w“ mm. mm“
_ "m w 2%“
~ummmm mmmw 




E 3mm? ,5

“fim m
m   %.
”mm “Mum“ — w~“_m

mmwMgunmu um


.. m: M
m» m:
mam.§ www

Mu. ”yaw

m ”a“.

 .1? , «Th1: 3.59.53 3 g : a 3 THE? 3...», .Lkflgrluu, .Wr. «tariffxaritinfifir 52..» 3. 1:? i I


 3311;111:112 (£de nf flyr llnfirh Swan‘s


December 3. 1946


Dear Chief:
In reply to your memorandum of November 29th regarding the original cases on

our docket, I have the following observations to make:

No. 1 New Mexico v. Colorado


I assume that the financial and physical reasons for failure to
draw the boundary line are formally before us on a recent report of the
boundary commissioner. Therefore, the suit must remain open and there

is nothing further to be done, though it might be desirable from time
to time to nudge the parties for appropriate inquiries through the Clerk.
and 4. Wisconsin et al v. Illinois

This is the suit involving the famous Chicago drainage canal con—
troversy which I suspect ought to be kept open in view of the continuing
injunction against diversion of Lake Michigan waters. But, in any event,
1 should think it was desirable to have the Clerk write to all the plain~
tiffs and ascertain to what extent their prayers for relief have been


New Jersey v. New York


bince the Court retains jurisdiction in this Delaware River diver—
sion controversy, I should think the suit ought to remain open.
Nebraska v. Wyoming

Ior similar reasons this suit ought to remain open.
Igggg v. Florida

Since this involves the claim of Massachusetts to a tax on Hetty Green's
son's estate, the case can be closed as soon as we are advised by Massach—
usetts that her claim has been completely satisfied.
Kansas v. Missouri

I assume that this must remain open.

II, and 12

These four cases are in various stages of adjudication at this Term.

Faithfully yours,

The Chief Justice ”~73

Ottjxnox Vlad km \J\€ COCrfisooolemggdg



rum mam-mm

“w 1 _2' ”m“ f 2m
, «a. , .

‘my » mwfimm.mawgwm,

as»; ' “awai—

mt' mama's:



w , 1%},

§1ImvmvQ'mlrtnf 1111‘ 11mm Stan‘s,

NOVember 22, l946.

My dear Mr. Chief Justice:

Pursuant to your direction I have surveyed
the twelve cases comprising the present Original
Docket of the Court. A brief statement, in each
case, showing its status is submitted to you

Yours very sincerely,


Honorable Fred M. Vinson,
Chief Justice of the United States,

Washin¢ton .



New Mexico v. Colorado (filed October 29, 1919)
Subject: Boundary.

By decree entered April 25, 1925 (268 U.S. 108),
the boundary was fixed and a commissioner appointed to
run the true boundary, construct monuments and file a
report. The commissioner is still engaged in this opera—
tion. Failure of the states to make necessary ap—
propriations has been the main factor in the delay in
completion of the project, although a contributing
factor is inability to engage in the work except during
a brief period each year due to mountainous nature of
country and high altitudes.

5 and h, Wisconsin, Michigan, New York, et al. v.
Illinois and Sanitary District of Chicago et a1.
(Filed July 1t, 1922, March 8, 192e, and dot. 22, 1926)

Subject: Diversion of water from Lake Michigan.

By decree entered April 21, 1950 (281 U.s. 696),
the amount of water to be withdrawn was limited and
the Sanitary District of Chicago directed to report
semi-annually as to progress made in the construction
of sewage treatment plants. The final report of the
Sanitary District, filed Jan. 5, 1959, showed com—
pletion of the projects.

The decree further provided that ”this Court
retains jurisdiction of the above—entitled suits
for the purpose of any order or direction, or modi—
fication of this decree, or any supplemental decree,
which it may deem at any time to be proper in re—
lation to the subject matter in controversy."

In 1959 the State of Illinois applied for a
modification of the decree. The matter was referred
to a Special Master, and his report confirmed
(515 U.S. 5h7). He later proceedings.

New Jersey v. New York and City of New York (filed May 22,1929)
Subject: Diversion of water from the Delaware River.

By decree entered May 25, 1951 (285 U.S. 805) a
limitation was placed on the amount of water which
might be diverted and such diversion conditioned
upon the construction of a sewage treatment plant.

The Court ”retains jurisdiction of the suit for the
purpose of any order or direction or modification

of this decree, or any supplemental decree that it
may deem at any time proper in relation to the subject
matter in controversy." No report required or made.
No subsequent proceedings.

Nebraska v. Wyoming et a1. (filed October 15, 195M)
Subject: Apportionment of water of the North Platte River.
Decree of apportionment entered October 8, 19h5

525 U.S. 665) provides under paragraph XIII: "The
curt reta1ns jurisdiction of this suit for the purpose



 of any order, direction, or modification of the decree,
or any supplementary decree, that may at any time be
deemed proper in relation to the subject matter in

Texas v. Florida, et al. (Filed March 15, 1957)

Subject: Determination of the true domicile of a
decedent as the basis of rival claims of
four states for death taxes.

The decree entered May 15, 1959 (506 U.s. A55)
provides: "5. The cause will be retained upon the
docket for such further action as may be necessary and
proper and the parties or any of them may at any time
hereafter apply for relief as they may be advised."

No subsequent proceedings.

{ansas v. Missouri. (Filed May 27, igto)
Subject: Boundary.

Final decree entered June 5, 19bi, provided:
"Both states having requested postponement of entry
of an order directing the placing of suitable monu-
ments or markers on the above designated boundary
until they have had opportunity to consider exchang-
ing certain lands and to make such exchanges, juris-
diction of this cause is retained for the purpose of
entering such order at an appropriate time."

Appropriate resolutions have been adopted by
the state legislatures and at their request for
further time for consideration an order was entered
Oct. 8, l9h5, extending the time for marking the
boundary until further order of the Court.
Illinois v. Indiana, et al. (Filed October 18, l9h5)
Subject: Pollution of waters of Lake Michigan.
Exceptions to interim report of Special Master
due December 16, 191;,6.
United States v. Wyoming and Ohio Oil Co. (Filed Oct.9,l9hh)

Subject: Suit to establish title to certain lands.

filed by De

ions to report of Special Master to be
camber 2, lghfi.


 No. ll. Georgia v. The Pennsylvania Railroad Company, et al.
(Filed March 26, 19h5)

Subject: Freight rates.

Final arguments before Special Master scheduled
for March of lQLY.

United States v. California. (Tiled October 22, l9h5)

Subject: Tidelands.

Assigned for argument on the pleadings -
February 5, 19h7.


 August 30, 19h?

Re: Jordan writ for Habeas Corpuse

On Thursday morning, August 28th, Mrs Holzworth, attorney for Jordan,
called me at the Waldorf-Astoria, and asked me about the action on the
petition for habeas corpus in this cases I told him I had examined all
the papers that he had left with the Clerk of the Supreme Courtg and
had denied the petition without prejudice. I had the language of the
order definitely in my mind since I had written it, and I quoted the
order to him ver batim. He thanked me for the informationo

Later I received the attached note, informing me that Mr. Holzworth
had telephoned to say that he had talked over the long distance telephone
with Justice Stevens and Justice Clark, and that Justice Clark was on
'vacationg and it was necessary to resubmit the writ for habeas corpus to
the Supreme Courto He wanted to know when I was returning to Washington»

On the morning of August 29th, I received from the mail desk, delivered
by a lady attendant of the hotel? a letter in longhand together with a note
infonning me that they would have it typewritten and sent to meo Later in
the day I received the latter from Mre Holzworth together with an order
which I took to be a copy of the original petition with a couple of delinea—
tions on the first page0 (I gave Mr. Cullinan of the Clerk's Office this
paper today; I also gave him the letter of August 29th? both the longhand
document and the typewritten ones}

Later in the afternoon of the 29th, Mr. Holzworth telephoned me, and
I advised him the grounds upon which I had reached the conclusion - that
he had not made a showing that he had exhausted his remedies before the
Federal District Court or the Justices thereof qualified to entertain the
application; that his first petition stated that Justices Stevens,
Edgerton and Clark had considered themselves disqualified, and in the
second paper he had stated that Justice Clark was leaving town, and also
made mention of having talked with Justice Edgerton“s clerk rather than
Justice Edgerton himself0 I told him that there were three other Justices
on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to whom he had not made reference. He
stated that he had been informed they were out of town» I told him that
there was nothing in the affidavit to that effect. He thought that there
was, but I assured him that there wasn‘t. Then we discussed the District
Judge situation, and I mentioned that he had not stated in his affidavit
who were in town and who were out of the District, but had simply said that
on August l7th, 18th, 19th and 20th he had presented the petition to all
the Justices who were in the District, I explained to him the situation
as I understooflzit of the Justi:rs of the U,So Circuit Court of Appeals