xt7msb3wtd0h_34 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. Marshall - general text Marshall - general 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_166/Folder_7/Multipage4073.pdf 1946-1950 1950 1946-1950 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_34 xt7msb3wtd0h swi-



New LN."
Ml". Hertlvf‘
Slldri Julv


:ervlce and Gr.~do
37’ CA I‘ CV’C



Workers Skipped aver
in Pa y Raises, [rim]

t “Its a low-down, dirty shame those (1 s0 and sqgj‘leftz“
'. ' is: ‘35



i” ,-. . liiu‘e - r» ti Namath year.
us out. _ V i

i ui . ‘ . . '. ' a ‘ :I.‘ ',} “-w ~.:_ -
‘Old 3.011) I? SO mad I could SCI eam. F01 a little blt I d 1&1in ““5 the same conditions they have had

v x . . . . - . . L tor ‘he Hist 12 years.
“’1 his 18 rank iniustice. It's up to them LO find some means L I . , ., ._
- - . -‘ . - . . i The Comptiollei Geneials Ci
of financmo the raise and not penalize us. The cost of liVing ‘. i e. .
. . ° . . ‘ ,, lice told this column this week
is Just as much for us as it is for the otheis. that no specific _ changes in the
These are jllSt some 01' the 8X1 trules have been made. .Until there
tDI'CSSlOIlS heard by employees in ceived 35 present is as follows: ljs some uniform deCiSion handed
various otl’ices in District Agen- Charwomen working in the Su- down I think the Supreme Court
cies that I Visited Monday morn—
ing, the first work (lay alter Con-

prenie Court Buildinc are in ashould restore leave privileges to
' 5
gross passed pay raise legislation (““19" 31301” being depri

,its charwomen the same as the
. "Ed .01 other agencies. This is no more
for benefiting all other classified $le and 1111111181 leave. The CIViltthan hit.
workers and postal employees but Service Act of 1936 provides that ,
lgllOl‘lllgll‘thClll.. ' parttime workers are not entitfe'
, $3.30 Raise Granted > to sick and annual leave.
Congress passed a compromise The rule however has beei
bill L‘rantiiiLr annual pav increases ”en \"irietl inter . ’ . ~
. « ,— g u . pietation by (lil~
0‘ $330 to 800000 Cl‘1551ll?(i_ gov'l'erent Agencies. The lel'EII‘V 0t
‘Cl‘I'ImCIIt employees. and .8430 to Congress Office of the Capital
480000 295“” .WOl‘kCl‘S. Approxi- Architect. and the Supreme Court
mately “@000 “l the toriner cate— has been granting leave to these
Raff-V are m “/Mhmgm”. and einplovees tor the last 12 years.
13,000 postal workers are in the Somebody "0t cold feet‘ when
‘Dsfiéggegfigltfigéglcgl'oups in the the threat 0? appropriation cut
1Federal sgrvice braid under dif— Effiefietyaelfe tixgfiigletso ”11215311852?qu
. erent con itions. here are those '5 2’ . ' _
1paid under the Classification Act iti‘iethod‘of‘kcu'tting d9“; Thls part:
tot 1923, as amended in 1947 and as 1111?: the” Shencmaltggflgelsgnflgei
jfigififiledtgoszecOsgidumlfnégit bthte SlithlEll the personnel office at the
Postal Pay Act, as also aiiieiittecl‘SLllilgme C1031” \Vltfh‘dl‘ewhth‘e 510k
last Saturday: and those paid un- ailioannua cave 10m ese cm-
jder the wage boards. ‘1) oyees. . 1 _
The amount of yearly salary un-¢ testored "1 'IWO ASCIICICS
dcr the bill‘just passed, that Willi Library of Congress and the
‘be reflected in the first pay period ' rchiteet of the Capital personnel
Iatter July 1 which Will be about flicials told the AFRO that their
Aug. 1, as compared to what is re- mployees are still working under



 'Attz‘rekers Hunted
By Silt) to 500 Men

OPELOUSAS, La., July 12—01?)
——-A relentless search continued
today for two men who killed a
retired naval officer and raped his
woman companion.

The office of Sheriff Clayton
Guilbeau said that between 300
and 500 men—the greatest man—
hunt in the history of St. Landry
Parish—was concentrated around
Melville, 22 miles northeast of

Guildbeau, who led the search,
identified the slain man as Albert
B. Couvillion, Melville, 39-year—
old former naval lieutenant. The
sheriff said two men, believed to
be Negroes, fractured Couvillion’st
skull, shot him to death and raped
his 21- -y-ear ~old woman companion
several times.


 QfoiL-c nf tip: J'flarelgal,
>311prcm2 (Smurf nf £112 illtitvh §tittc5
‘111'451fingtmnil. 0;.

August 5, 19h6

MEMORAl-IDIM TO: Mr. Paul L. Kelley
Administrative Assistant to the Chief Justice

I am advised that should the radio you request be for
"official use” and the Chief Justice will approve its pur—
chase, I will, upon receipt of a memorandum from you re—
questing its purchase for ”official use”, do my best to
obtain the model and make radio you desire.

In selecting one please remember that this building

has direct not alternating current.

Marshal, supreme Court, U.S.


 C - SF — Marshall

Wt» 12} 19135

mom '30: Hr. Than. 3. VW,
W1. We com, 11.8:

In ”upon“ to your mom of August 5th: concerning
the purchase of a radio for the official m or the Chief Jua—
tioo, Inukboplemdifyonmldamnptamhmehw
chain at. your earliest cementum. Any meg make, I am am,
will be mine): uuafaetoxys

I panama that you will take «aim or the fact. that.
thobuilding iadmdhrdmtandmbalumfimgmk

Mama“: Assigtm
to we can: Mat.


 6 - SF - Marshall

@fficz of tip film-51ml,
filtprnme QImtrt cf the flflrtitnh §tatins
Elnaafingtma. (LT.


 QDfE'ch of up il-Iarslgal.

511131-3111? LCmttf nf tlze'lhtitvh §faivs

111m; 11 ingtmt. I]. Q.

"mafia so '1

I"??? if


 (foirc uf tlgv ifl‘atslzal.

§nm~vm2 (Smut nf the 11mm >5t‘aivs

73361513 ingfmt,D. 0;.



Supreme Court of the United States.

M emomnd/um.

_________ QQQJHZSHHH“, 1946.

to the Chief Justices
Copies of the attached card will

ye place-4L on the tables in our Cafeteria

Uecenfibur 30th at noon, if you a0 not

UM“! 6am, .



If the threatened strike of production and ser=
vice cafeteria workers materializes on January 19
this cafeteria will be closed throughout the

Any inconvenienco you may suffer as a result of
the above is regrettado




If the threatened strike of production and ser=
vice cafeteria workers materializes on January 19
this cafeteria will be closed throughout the

Any inoonvenienoo you may suffer as a result of
the above is regrettodo




If the threatened strike of production and sere
vice cafeteria workers materializes on January 19
this cafeteria will be closed throughout the

Any inconvenience you may suffer as a result of
the above is regrettedo



 Nu/n'mw (four/- of [hr United. States.



 ;«x.w.u.. "1;... .
LIL/1,114,211, Wm. {ff/1.7/ ”W, V/z’ad/ yr] "
5.11,, 5/. 2" , I} Jivm Jun // 11/ Ill/m [aflomr n/Jn‘ rflur/m/ /le
.' z /

; /u.‘


 (Offirc of tip: marshal,
finnrcmc Gizmrt uf figs llxtitnh Sbtatrs
ana hingtmLD. 0:.

May 13, 1947

MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Paul Kelley, Administrative Assistant to the
Chief Justice of the United States.

The attached paper with a card saying, ”If helpful and not infra
dignotem, will you transmit these to the Justices".

The author, Harold G. Aron, is the gentleman who was offering
to sell us the Rosenthal pictures of the Court. Do you think he pre-
pared this article in the course of figuring out whether or not he could
sue us for not buying his pictures, or is he preparing to stumble over the

base of one of our columns?


ThOS . E . 12" aggaman


 Federal Tort Claims Act:

Comments and Questions for Practising Lawyers

by Harold G. Aron - of the New York Bar

' The enactment of the Federal Tort Claims Act, as a part of the Legislative Re-
organization Act of T946, was ”a stupendous break with a very ancient past". That
“The King can do no wrong" ceased to be low of the land. The new statute is
having many consequences, and is creating many problems, for lawyers and their
clients, throughout the United States.

In fulfillment of our function of giving to our readers prompt and useful information
as to new legislation and its effects, Former Congressman Aaron L. Ford, of the
Mississippi and District of Columbia Bars, wrote for our November issue (page 74l)
an authoritative article on the Legislative Reorganization Act, to which he had had
a relationship. At page 744 he discussed the Federal Tort Claims Act. In our present
issue, Professor Borchard, of the Yale Law School and the Section of Municipal Law,
gives a further analysis of the latter statute, and also surveys the present situation
and proposed legislation as to the liability of States and municipalities.

To the foregoing we add trenchant comments on the new federal statute, by
Harold G. Aron, of the New York Bar. He poses many practical and challenging
questions, from his long experience. Mr. Aron was born in Brooklyn, was graduated
from Hamilton College and the New York Law School and was admitted in l908 to
the New York Bar, of which he has since been a member in active practice. During
l9l l-l9 he was a Professor of Law at the New York Law School. From time to time
he has been a special counsel for various federal and State boards, officers and
agencies, including the Shipping Board and the Attorney General. He is the author
of several books as to the law of evidence and of real property. Practising lawyers

may find help in some of the questions which he raises.



' l’tofessor l’untltattl‘s paper seems
to me to make a \aliant attempt to
tour a broad field of snbjet is which
are not cognate in origin. theory or
practice. to treat them together seems
to me to lt';t\t‘ a blurred pit tnre where
his outstanding legal scholarship
would lt;t\e been of great value in
ettlting what is :1 tlt'atnaticalb lair

reatlting dewloptnent itt Anglo-Sax-

on law «comparable itt significance.
in the light, of the trend of political
economy. with the abandonment of
trial by ordeal.

The barrier whiclt precludes treat-
ing together the subjects of ”tort
claims against . nntnicipal. State
and federal governments” is the vary-
ing type of polititztl sovereignty, if

it may be so called. which is involved

when one deals with wrongs wrought
by the United States of America, by
the several States of the Union, and
by municipal corporations. Under
our Constitution, the United States
is a sovereign in an extremely limited
sense, as far as municipal law is con-
cerned; and none of its Courts have
any inherent jurisdiction. The States,
on the other hand, subject only to
specific limitations of their own ac-
ceptance under the Federal Constitu»
tion, are truly sovereign in their
domains; and their Courts possess
inherently all of the judicial powers
which have accumulated and vested
over the centuries of. .-\ng‘l<)—S;tx011
tions. as tnere creatures of the State,
have of course no sovereignty; they
possess only such arbitrary powers as
the State may, again within its own
constitutional limitations. delegate.
The transitions and developments
with which Professor Borchard deals
stem from the hardships which grew
out of? the concept, expressed in
the maxim, “The King can do no
, but their rationale is quite
independent and different.

The enactment by the 79th Con-
gress ol' the Federal Tort (llaims Act
(Public Law fifll), coupled with the
very recent official statement by the
Lord (Ihancellor of lingland that the
(Irown is about to give up its legal




immunity from suits ill tort and con-



tract. marks an historic milestone in
the .-\nglo-Saxon law and reyeals
again the graceful llexibility oi Our
Lady oi the Cornnron Law in meeting
changed conditions throtrglr the cen-
ttrries. \\'ithal. it is a strange corn-
portrrd which lies behind this far-
reaching change itr the two countries:
and the tart that they are contempo-
raucous is not an historical accident.
ii such there eyer he. to the Lord
Chancellor. the doctrine that “The
King can do no wrong" is a “sur-
yiyal that should be swept away";
and the Senate Committee which re-
ported the Federal Tort Claims hill
said, togently and succinctly and
trrore to the point (Senate Report
lltltl'). as to the Coy'ernmem's ex—
emption irorn actions “with respect

to any common law tort." that its

only ittstilitation seems historical."

History of Private

Laws as to Claims

Sonre itttttre historian. it he digs
deep enotrglr. nray opirre that the
proxinrate cattse oi the Federal Tort
Claims Act was the long-existing and
troublesome practice oi pr‘iy'ate laws.
reliei bill: and Committees on Claims.
which the Act abolishes, altlrotrglr in
practice this abolition has merely
resulted. tlrtrs liar, that reliei measures
are routed to the judiciary Commit-
tee oi'the House and to the Finance
and other Standing Cornnrittees oi
the Senate which haye sury'iyed the
Reorgani/ation Act. .\ carelul read-
ing oi the Federal Tort Claims Act
will reveal acleqnate “escape clauses”
to preser'y'e. when needed. all the
prior prerogatiyc's ol' the Congress as
to rebel hills. priyate laws and claims
against the United States, and that

what Congress really did, and wisely.
was to dttrnp a load oi trotrbles on
the iederal Courts, without stir-
rendering airy ol' the powers it had
when the first reliei hill was intro-
duced and became a priy'ate law in

Presidents since the days oi .\dams
and statesmen since the time oi Serra-
tor Brodhead haye railed against the
practice oi reliel hills and priy'ate
laws: but it was not. until lb‘fr') that
the Cottrt oi Clairirs was created. with
its powers somewhat broadened twen-
ty years later. At no time until Presi-
dent Truman allixed his signature
last August 2 to the Act to reorgani/e
the Congress cottlcl an American citi»
/en stte his Government ior its wrong-
doing, it it went beyond a breach of
contract or sortie specific Act oi Con-
gress. Yet as long ago as ltSiS‘l. the
United States Supreme Cottrt. in
Lang'forcl y". ('ni/ecl S/(llc's (’llll U. S.
ii ‘1) had said, as to the doctrine that
“The King can do no wrong” and
was immune irorn suit. that "neither
in rel'erence to the Coy'ernment, ol'
the United States or the seyeral
States. or any oi their oilicers, the
linglish maxim has an existence in
this country.”

Neyertheless ey'er'y Congress. beiore
arid since that decision, has been
burdened and cursed—as many corr-
scientious Members haye l'elt. arrcl
there hay'e been many—with thou-
sands oi reliei bills seeking sanction
as priy‘ate laws. becatrse the l‘nited
States could not be sued [or its
wrongdoing. men when a negligently
driy‘en mail trtrck permanently in-
jured an innocent child or killed the
br *adwinner oi a household. In the
last twelye Congresses. approximately
lti,()(l() reliel' bills on behali oi such
private, claims haye been introduced.
oi which abottt. one in ten has been
enacted into a priyate law. Not a l‘ew
oi them haye been extremely priy'ate.
New Statute Means a Vast
Volume of Litigation
The sheer volume oi new litigation
which the Federal Tort Claims Act
will generate and iorce upon the
Courts oi the United States. their
judges. and the law oilicers oi Coy-
ermtrent, puts a duty squarely upon

the shoulders ol the, legal prolessiou:
and it seems to me regrettable that
the New York State liar Association
should hare seen [it to publish an
attack on its proy‘isions limiting the
lees oi attorneys. under the caption
“l“.trchaining the Lawyer" (Letter
.\'o. llfi: ()ctober .‘ltl. Illlti). In de»
hates on the lloor ol the llotrse oi
Representatiy'es. when pr'eyious at-
tempts were made to pass this salu-
tary legislation. bitter things haye

been said against the Bar, as ior


example. that:

\Ye rrrtrst remember that the Amer-
ican Bar Association is composed ol
lawyers and that lawyers are prosecut-
ing claims. and that lawyers want to
get the law into the position where
they cart most readily and practically
represent their clients. It is urged as
a corrtlusiye argtrrncrrt in iayor oi it.
that the liar Associations oi the
l'nitecl States are behind this bill. ()i
course. they are. the bill opens up a
tremendous new field oi litigation.
\\'hen the hill I).'Is’sc‘s. the actions
against the Federal (ioyer'nmc‘nt will
be multiplied by tens oi thousands.
the bill ought to be labelled a bill
tor the reliei oi lawyers in general and
ambulance chasing lawyers in parric»
ttlar. IZy'ery one who stumbles on the
postvoihce steps or who slips or falls in
this Capitol ’iuilding' or who is
injured. in any way. in the national
parks or the, national iorests'. is going
to rtrrr to his lawyer and bring an
action against the Coyernment. I
make a prediction that in addition to
its being an itty'itation to ambulance
chasing lawyers. it will be a direct in—
yitaticm to district attorneys and their
deputy district attorneys to make easy
settlements in iay'or oi those whom
they owe some political obligation.1

Many New Problems Are
Created for Practitioners

\\’heneyer the law breaks with the.
past by positiye legislatiy'e action, no
resulting statute springs “lull»armed
hour the brain oi love." The Federal
Tort Claims Act has llaws. inepti-
tttdes and ambiguities. which can be
troublesome. It is to be hoped that
the Bar will show a degree oi selli-
discipline which will negate and sttrl‘
til'y such accusations as those I haye

The new law is a stupendous break
with a yery ancient, past. due. chielly
and realistically. to the l'act that. as
was said oi the Senate Committee

which reported it (supra): “\Vith the
exparrsiou ol' g'oy'ermnent actiyities
in recent years. it becomes especially
important to grant priyate individu-
als the right to stre the Government
in respect oi such torts as negligence
in the operation oi Vehicles.” This is
a classic oi understatement, oi over-
simplification, and oi using language
to conceal thought. It would lraye
been ruore disingenuous to time said:
“On account oi Marxian socialism,
the New Deal and the results oi
incipient communism”, and to haye
recognized the iact that the range
ot' the new statute is as wide as the
substantiye law; that the procedural
questions which it raises are as far-
llung as the adjectiye law, and that
the problems oi prooi as intricate as
airy aspect oi the probatiy'e law.

For example, practitioners are al-
ready yy'andering in Ierrn incognita,
not men certain as to how to desig—
nate the United States as a defend-
ant. ()ne action already begun de—
scribes the deienclant as a sovereign
corpora/ion. a combination oi only
two words that will excite the mind
ol any legal scholar and perhaps
prompt dozens oi law rey'iew con-

Practical Questions Under
the New Act

’l'o mention a lie\\' oi the problems,

already heirrg faced, in litigation
begtrn or about to be begun under
this new Federal 'l‘ort Claims Act:
.\re admissions against interest by
Presidents. Cenerals oi the Armies,
members oi the Cabinet. and lesser
goyernment otlicials. competent eyi-
deuce in proying a claim. where the
rights ol' the inyentor oi the long—
distance telephone were sold to
France by the United States Coy'errr
ment. without his knowledge or corr-
sent or compensation to him? Are
statements oi Secretaries oi State,
Ambassadors and other ioreign err
yoys admissible. where an American
exporter was swindled by the lm-
perial German Coyermuent and the
negligence oi the Coyernment oi the
United States? Are. statements made
by otlicial American agents beiore
Mixed Claims Tribunals eligible as
ey‘iclence, where an old lady lost her

all by tailing to leaye attached to her
German bonds the coupons, when
she presented her claim against Ger-
many under the Settlement oi \Var
Claims Act alter the last war?

Au. con/mire, are the sell-serying
declarations oi officials and bureau-
crats oi the United States Goyern-
merit admissible against a plaintitl
who sues under the Federal Tort
Claims Act? Can there be, as against
the United States, an examination
beiore trial or its equiyalent? Has
any District Court jurisdiction under
the Act, where it is proper or neces-
sary to join a Cabinet oilicer or other
public official, or does the old rttle
apply that all such actions rnttst be
brought in the District of Columbia?
Then, too, there is this magnificent
question, which arises in litigation
already on its way to the Courts:
Does a breach of trust, express or
constructiye, such as arose, on the
part oi the L'nited States, under the
Settlement oi the \\'ar Claims Act,
as to ttrrpaid holders of awards of the
Mixed Claims Commission (United
States and Germany) sound in tort
under the new law as it does basically
and philosophically?

Is the Remedy Under the
New Act Exclusive?

Again: Is the remedy under this Act
exclusiye. despite its language. where
the wrong sued for emanates from
the operatiye ellect 0i an Act ofCon-
gress. or is there also a remedy ill the
Court oi Claims under the Tucker
Act, despite the [act that the action
originates ex delicto? \\'hen does the
Statute oi Limitations prescribed in
the Federal il'ort Claims Act begin
to run, where. the tort is, as it may
be and is in sorrre pending litigation,
cony'ersion arrtl iraud? Does the cloc—
trine oi res i/).sct loqaitur apply, un»
der this new law, and to what extent
does the settled substantive law oi
principal and agent, apply to a de-
fendant (the United States) with two
million employees? Naturally, as in
any initial legislation, coyer‘ing so
broad a held. the language oi the
new Act is inadequate, when it comes
to its saying: clauses and exceptions.

l. Congressional Record. for September 12, 1940;
pages 18207-18226.


 Years of Litigation to Define
Mcior Questions
There are major questiotts raised by
tlte language of the Act wlticlt can be
delintited and defitted only after
years of litigation and judicial de»
cision. \Vhat, in the sweeping lan-
guage of the Act, are tlte rights of a
citizen itt tlte United States Court
sitting without a jury aitd with pow-
er to adjudicate “any claitn against
tlte United States, for money only
. . on account of dantages to or loss

of property or on account of personal
injury or death caused by the negli-
gent or wrongful act or omission of

any employee of the Government
while acting within the scope of his
office uttder circumstances where the
United States if a private person
would be liable to the claimant for
such damage, loss or injury or death
in accordance with the law of the
place where the act or omission oc-
curred" (SectionillO, Public Law 601).
If the distinguished Editor-in-Chief
of the JOURNAL runs ottt of material
itt tlte next five or ten years, he will
find plenty of ”copy" in seeking to
bring within accepted legal mean-
ings this pregnant recital of the
scope of the Federal Tort Claims
Act attd the phrases used in connec-
tiott therewith or contained therein,
sttclt as "common law tort" (are there
otltersP), ”fiscal operations of the
'l‘reasury", “regulation of tlte mone-
tary system", ”interference with con-
tract rights”. ”cotttbatant, attivities
of, tlte military attd ttaval forces",
“claims arising iii a foreign Colllr
try", etc.

Some years ago the Chancellor of
what then was lrlungary, speaking in
this country. said of the adtttinistra—
tion of tlte law in gene ml: "1 say we
are trying. \VC are having great diffi-
culty. either ttot fully comprehend-
ing what justice, eqttity and (Estab-
lislted law tnean. or iii shaping a
cottrse of public and private action
itt accord with them attd the ideals
they express." Afufntis mu/(Imlis,
ttntclt the same tttay be said of the
ttew Federal Tort Claims .»\ct.

\Ve shall better understand this
new law, if we look back a few hun-

dred years. For, as Matthew Arnold
said: “The largest part of that history
which we commonly call ancient is
practically modern, as it describes
society in a stage analogous to that
which it 110w is, while, on the other
hand, tttost of what is called modern
is practically ancient, as it. relates to
a state of things that ltas passed

The maxim that “the King can do
no wrong” ltas passed away. History
is stubborn, yields slowly and pain-
fully, as one is aware itt looking over
the scores of volumes of learned dis»
sertations in the Congressional Li—
brary on the subject of the divine
right of kings, front which this max-
im emanates. The implications of the
abandonntent of this doctrine in the
United States and England are too
great to deal with adequately within
the confittes of a monthly journal,
however outstanding the writer may
be, as is Professor liorchard, for the
subject goes back a very long way.

Shortly after james I came to the
throne of England in 1603, he att-
nounced that “the state of Monarchy
is the sttpretttest thing on earth";
and his royalist followers, while
some of our ancestors were planning
to make the great pilgrimage to
Plymouth, agreed that "monarchs are
divinely sanctioned to rule, deriving
all authority front the Deity and
none from the governed". Consottant
with this doctritte was the generally
accepted view that the King was the
fountainihead of all justice, attd out
of that grew wltat we now call Courts
of Equity. as distinguished front
Courts of law, aitd a quite inde-
pendettt system of jurisprudence
which ptit “the King’s conscience”
above the law attd gave rise to the
great powers of wltat is today the
highest judicial position iii the
world, the Lord Chancellorship ol'
royal and indisputable power attd

England. these cottcepts of

righteousness, there dueloped the

tttaxittt that “the King catt do no

How For Has the United
States Gone?

And now we of the l’ntt' and our

austere and distinguished brethren
on the bench must ask
whether, in the Federal Tort Claims
Act, the United States ltas gone, to
the extent of its sovereignty, the full
distance of agreeing to shed its int-


perial robes, step dowtt off its throne,
attd subtttit itself to the normal proc-
esses of the adtttinistratiott of Anglo—
Saxon justice? One would think that
the fratners of the Federal Tort
Claims Act had never heard of the
time when the throne of England
called in its janitor, for such is the
origin of the word Chancellor, and
told ltim to lessen the hardships of
the law and tlnts created
equity jurisprudence. Law in its gett-


eric sense, consists of more than ac-
tions at contract” and 6x deficit).
Does the Federal Tort Claims Act
cover such cases, of which there are
ntatty, where the federal government,
in its old and new sprung powers,
ltas caused loss and ruin, but within
the technical mandates of the law; or
does the new statute tttean what was
pretty well said in the Illinois stat-
ute, accepting its liability for wrong-
doing to its citizens thirty years ago
by establishing a Court of Claims
with jurisdiction to hear all claittts
botlt legal attd equitable “which the
State as a sovereign commonwealth
should itt equity and good conscience

ft is not a simple thing to activate
accurately and justly this new Fed-
eral Tort .\ct. radiate
its rationale to State attd municipal

Claims attd

government. it SCCIHS U) INC [0 llC(l(l

a john Marshall to construe and
interpret it, with tlte sympathetic
aid of a Bar that ltas ttot forgotten
that ancient legal ethic of Anglo-

Saxon jurisprudence, quoted by
Gilbert itt these words:
But a Counsellor cannot have this
or atty other action (against his
client) to obtain pecuniary Consid-
eration for his Advice; the Law of
England concurring on this point
with the Delicacy of the Roman Law,
itt ttot permitting a Price to be af-
fixed to the performance of. this hon-
orable Duty itt which so many and
arduous questions ntust arise. where
the spontaneous Acknowledgment of
the (Ilient can alone be adequate.

Iv’c/n‘m/ct/ from ,\\n I5uprcmn (Smurf of £112 limiter: fitattns
alias hingtmtffl. OI .

May 23, 1947

The Honorable Alfred C. Coxe
U. S. District Judge

United States Courthouse
Foley Square,

New York '7, No Y.

Dear Judge Coxe:

Mr. Montgomery Hunt Johnson has let me see your letter of May 16th
relative to a picture of Senator Conklin and suggested I write you direct.

What I had asked Mr. Johnson for was a photograph and a small letter
in the senator‘s handwriting that I could frame in with the photograph in our
official collection. However, if there is a chance of some of his family or
fricnds presenting the Court with an appropriate painting of him, the Court
is in a receptive mood.

Should a prospective donor inquire how a portrait would be labeled,
i(;& of the plaque under the portrait would read:

Appointed - Confirmed - Commissioned - Declined

Associate Justiceship
Painted by
18-— - 18-—
Presented by
Mr. Johnson has just contributed an excellent, original 4 x 5% inch
photograph by Brady of the Senator, which, unless a larger original turns up,
we may enlarge into the 8 x 10 inch size, the size of most of our collection.
Thanking you for your interest in our problems, I remain;

cc: Mr. Montgomery H. Johnson

TEE} : dw


 Afmiaurg QImnmittm‘ 1m Rubs fur 0,31in flarnrrhnrv

@ffirv uf tlgr §vrrrfnrg

§nprcmv Llfnnrt nf 113v IIniirh §tattr5 Bunting

Iflushiltgtolnfl GI


 UfoiL-v uf tlgv filarelgal,
>511prv1m‘ kCuurf uf flyc‘lhtih‘h §via~xtr5

3.11am l} iluzxtuull Q: .

February 1:, 1948


12.:1}«;1.-1<):-‘:;,_-:our: run: I"8 Ver‘geret

ebruary 14th at one o'clock,
um. Slade can be reached on inter~


been established for use on Eaturdgys onlv2
ience after the Teiep
manner other

Hone Office is Closed, he Will


mm “.mm

' smmwrwmmwum
éhiotmc. mmmsummm,mz
mummmum WWMwhichm
mmmmmmmumm ‘


17m truly m.
1’. in. Lima, mm. W





, I"; 1"” if AJHJL'Ep‘?’ ‘ ‘


rrom the Chief Justice,”

Please indicate whether or not you feél that

the Earsnal should 3 9 Jr r. Ayers -

h’I 1


_______-..... »——————1——--

2// F
Frank1urter.**aéz ~ V’K21F .?r


1 .




 f/ / \{a-r‘ '
.. 2 i
- , 1;
. f" C

,,_ "1| /// L/Lfl


 (foist (If the iflarshal,
filqrreme Q'mtrf 31" £112 11mph §>ibtix5
Washingtonffl. 01.

January 23 , 1 Mb .



w 12.1w


itmms as. W Hui:

W .
1mm mmmflm ”Managua”:



(Sui mmmmmmmumw.
which i'utwmmmnmaaacg