xt7msb3wtd0h_5 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. Associate Justices - William O. Douglas text Associate Justices - William O. Douglas 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_161/Folder_3_4/Multipage393.pdf 1947-1953 1953 1947-1953 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_5 xt7msb3wtd0h Frankfurter .- ,

7, . my” ‘1 L ,. d >
Again ea 5- .

.- . . . 1 ,

:n. Opinions 2 .
By’Chaimcrs M. Roberts “ ’ "It
Post Reporter ~ “ ll
Justice Felix Frankfurter once‘
gain was the opinion writing’
Iork-horse of the Supreme Court[
uring the past term. ‘ 1‘

An unofficial compilation; shows
hat Frankfurter wrote 45 of the»
140 opinions turned 'out‘ bYth‘e,
dine justices. Last term he Wrote
400£215... ; __

But three other justices wrote
’more of the court’s majority—and
ruling—opinions than did Frank-
furter. Justice William 0. Doug-
las wrote 20, Justice Hugo L.‘
Black 19; Justice Stanley 1‘. Reed!
16 and Frankfurter 14. I

An additional 11 Frankfurter:
opinions were oncurring ones,
mining in the majority ruling. This,
was more than thoseiof'any. other
justice. f _ " '

Frankfurter also led in dissents,,
writing 20 of the 90 turned out;
this term. Last term the 'total
was 70." '

Following is a table of all opin-
ions other than 14 per curiam
opinions (not signed by a justice)
handed down in the 1948-49 term!

Majority rulings—«Vinson, 10;!
Black, ‘19; Reed, 16; Franfurter,
14; Douglas. 20; Murphy, 9; Jack.
son, 10; Rutledge, 9; Burton, 7.

. Concurring opinions—Vinson,‘
0; Black, 3; Reed, 0; Frankfurter;
11; Douglas, 5; Murphy, 1; Jack-3
son, 4; Rutledge, 6; Burton,- 2. _

Dissenting opinions—Vinson, 4;
Black, 7; Reed, 8; Frankfurter,
20: Douglas, 12; Murphy, 9; Jack-
son, 17; Rutledge, 8; Burton, .5.

Separate opinions—Douglas, 1;
Jackson, 3; all other justices, 0..

Total opinions for 1947-48 and
ifor ‘1948-49—Vinson, 13 and 14;'
Black, 23 and’ 29; Reed, 18 and 24;
Frankfurter, 40 and 45; Douglas,
32 and 38; Murphy, 17 and 19;
Jackson,‘ 33 and 34; Rutledge, 28
and 23: Burton. 11 and 14.

In all, the Court this past term
issued formal opinions in 114 cases



- compared to 110 the previous term.
: The 14 curiam-opinions this time
~ contrasted with 8 in 1947-48.



[o “wand-4

 M31 37.. W'

W Irving:

mtmmmhtwawxmh. Izm-
Mammzmwamw wmgmmm‘m
utorwponttulwnu.“ fiwwdthuumm _
mmwommto ”Mammuwotmu
mmmyum. Inmmfifwwhhutn
mnuvifi. zmzmum-‘wmumm
mmutuumtueluwmpm,m, .


”mar-amt. mm min “14:1an
mic-sumac ma,atmemruwtm,u
mattmetmjebs '

I Wumamm an» at“: animal:
you for your mum to retrain m any palatial activity
mum)!» nmmwmawamflthwum

Your: hum,


w. mm; W,
5%. nun Penman,
3%. ma. mum.


 fiuprmm‘ Q’nutt of the 1mm Estates
fiwhfitgfmtlfi Q1.


m may)

{.ZFF‘ 8 1947

t’m‘ V.

My secretary, Mrs. Edith Allen, has requested 90 days sick
leave beginning March 1, 19M. This I have granted after being
advised that it is the practice to grant such leave in the case
of secretaries to judges in the lower federal courts. Mrs. Allen
has been in the government service since 1931; and an employee of
the Court since April 1939. She has been my secretary since 1935.
Miss Gertrude Jenkins, who is employed by the Court as assistant
secretary to any of the Justices who might require her services in
an emergency, will take over the work in my office until Mrs. Allen
returns to her position on June 1, 191:7.

Memorandum to the Chief Justice:



William 0. Douglas.

 April 30, 19h?

Dear Bill:

note which Kiss Jenkins simulated Mentodthfiymm “rm-1n
mtardymverypxmptm. Sometimesmthinkthatm'm

may. Wchftmalmttersoma‘tthalaateonfmm



With every good wish,

mgr—1m F538

Honorable 75.1118»: 0. Douglas,
Doctors Hospital,
Washington, DJ}.





 :‘Sfinprvuu‘ (Sunrt uf tlgrlhtitrh §tatv§
111m" lgingtmti’l U:

bum '5, Mu“:



 Or‘g‘md Vfied ‘m \HP Cox-res Verde/agthfla


 Rear 13, 19h?


Received your note relative to No. 715; State of Madame vs
the United States. ,

I on saving me cases withmt augment; but with the understanding
fluttlmywillberewroryouifymmmforthen. Actually.
Old-45m. I hesitate to aesim any canoe town for a. weak or no until
from it. 80,, hold your horses: and get well. that mg imam.and

Hiaeedyou at'ran Clerk’s _ ', andlfldreddidn't aetlike

Kat-old did a good job for you: on the rate om.

' Folixhaaamgmfltofhiadiasantinfieigmfiarmn

mturcdrdleutmrdestanlw. Wemldwthathomdamtc

Sc,agam,holdymrhoreee,endgetheakintrin. Hyena!
mm fommwlllenmyouror thehoneetretehi ethareiu,ym

51,46 -

Honorable William O. Douala,
Doctors Hospital,
washington, Deco



 §uprcmc (Court nf thvjflnitch Erodes:


glhtfilginghntll QT



 Supreme Court of the United States.

Memm andum


 Supreme Court of the United States.

Mom ora mlum.

___________ §[?l___________, 1947

Mr. Chief Justice Vinson,

The Clerk has informed
us that Nos. 1256,? & 8 have been
held up. It occurred to me that my
note may have been unclear, and it
may have been held on account of
Justice Douglas. All I meant to say
was that he desired to note his dis-
sent along with that of Justice Black.
I did not mean to say that he intended

If I have been responsible
for any ccnfusion on the case, I am

V8151 SOT] y 0


 Supreme Court of the United States.


Mr. Chief Justice Vinson,

Justice Douglas desires to
dissent from the per curiam in Nos. 1256,
1257, and 1258, and I have informed the
Clerk of this fact.

The Justice will be unable
to be in Court today.


. R .Wo 1 lenberg -"
Law Clerk



Supreme Court of the United States.



 >51tprtmc gnnrt uf tip innitrh >5tutcs

IlTaalthttmnD. U:


 '/§“""""\““._)M€,«-‘L "3,, _ @‘vfl‘

N ”(/1 («Id Advxxmvfimn/ .
. a w Rev,

.w/{./‘v£.Mu “a {44 {:24


 July 31,. 19h?


mksofoperatim Gladtohearthat

it was Mess-em, and means deed ”is

. done... ~ _ _

Y Roberba3oinsme1‘nmm

I ofmaffwtienfwmand

yam-e13 . ,_ 3 .


Mable m 0. m, .
Physicians and Surgeons Hospital,


 §uprrmt (Emmi of 5:112 Elnfivh §iztt2§
333N§IIfitgtnIt,E. 0:.


—1:I.LL,.A.Q"/ ‘\

, ,r
J "—45’1 ‘x.. L/L,/-.q




“L \kwL ( Caxr‘


 §uprrmc Quart uf thc 311nitnh §iains
Washinghmi}. (E.


/ .




number 3, 19h?


_or August 3rd, and m are setting the NM «so: over for

the November amnion. You were 1’0?wa right in your couch--
aion that we would make the Wmm’o awarding in arm
desires, andwantyoutclmauthatlwillaniaranwdarafiha
Caurb, ”mountsokaepywmrrmhannniilycumA
up and at Mm.

upmright, butifywconiimatogetbotmthmywrlaia
tar indicates, I dnn't human” adult Milwm I are going

Robarigmdlapentncouplaofmkainxanmw, cadenc-
MoyadaaoingauroldMendeagain Sinceaarmimgrhaw.
Inomgama,hagotibnaouiotfourand inthaotharhngcttwa
ontofrour,andthaymbothotihagw as. Inmlaaigua,
henotonlygetiwahiia but drawiniwomandowndcna
himself. Itoldhinthcmorolm hinplayttwwreharmindcd
noof'hiafa‘bhar. Miamurmmmwmtmm

pretty goadi
Roberta Join: me in affectionate regards to W and
yourself. _
Sincerely yours,

(Signed) Fred LEI.- Vinson

Honorable William 0. Douglas,
Inpavar Camp,

Matias, Wagon.




 gm (gamut flpe‘jfiit’tteh gm





 filmrnme Quart nf fly: 33mm: fitates
mafihfitgtmt 1:3, EB. Q;





 §1q1rvmc (Smart of £332 ihtiith gums
wamlfingimt £3. E LII,


fw er ’U‘i’ -
1 MW 1 W7 M

9 ”W “Mth \skaykjlpl M
5‘ ”by $1; .


 K MM. um x5 - km , 1 I 3 0

M J \ ¢ ‘

‘ V Magi/W A j}, [@‘jk w ‘ ( LM‘M’V ’
fl;,g/JV1MUT 1% {IflL/NM’ MmW—l/ .
#:ghgq [AD ,/ $1.3;sz 3M



. / M
~ ‘3"er- . .v... . KL! ”mun. ,

‘ ‘M



at the Annual Dinner of the

Rhode Isl ar Association

Sheraton—Biltnore Hotel
Providence, Rhode Island

1701:1051: 5/, October 29, 19b? —— 6:30 Puma (EST)


 A Soviet professor of law recently stated, ”Man should have no
rights that place him in opposition to the community.“ The idea has
ancient lineage. The slogan for centuries under monarchies was similar:
"The King can do no wrong.” The slogan of every dictator from time
immenorial has, indeed, been “I am the State”. Mussolini and Hitler are
among recent illustrations. Those who control the Communist party are a
current example.

Totalitarianism has Lad both varying forms and varying objectives.
But the objectives, no matter hOW'venal or how worthy, have invariably
been the excuse for suppression of civil rights of the individual.

The tecrnique is not exclusively that of dictators. In the eighteenth
century when democracy was emerging in England, the younger Pitt sought to

justify the infamous treason and sedition trials on the ground that they

were essential to the defense and welfare of England. Our own record is

not without blemish. Je cannot view jitn pride wnat took place in New
in the cases of Sacco and Vanzetti, nor what has happened in the Far West
to some Americans of Japanese ancestry. Lvery lynching is a repudiation of
the ideals on vhich our Reonblic was founded. And the signs "No Natives
Allowed“, which until recently hung in the cafes and theatres of Alaska,
negation of our American ideal. The security of the state or
‘ocial-wclfarc was invariably advanced as the justification for each
and every lawless act of this character. All of Ulich bears out the
observation of Hr. Justice Brandeis that, ”Experience should teach us to

be most on guard to orotect liberty rhcn the Government's ournoses are
i L I, - J.



beneficent. % latest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious


encroachment by men of zeal, well—meaning but without understanding."

But such episodes did not set the pattern. By the turn of the
nineteenth century England won by supreme advocacy and steadfastness the
civil rights which fear of revolution had almost sacrificed. And the
instances where civil rights of the individual are sacrificed in our country
are, happily, decreas‘ . ;' 1c years. Moreover, by reason of freedom
of sdecch and of press, the conscience of the nation can be aroused to
prevent any increase or spreading of these noxious practices.

in totalitarian systems, however, sacrifice or obliteration of the
civil rights of the individual is prominent and is
technique. Freedom of speech and of press would be dangerous to those in
power, since hey would create doubts anl suspicions concerning the
invulnerability of the rulers or would generate opposition to them. And
full recognition of freedom of religion would cause the masses to realize
that there was, indeed, a God higher than any secret police, wiser than
any judge, more powerful than any dictator. That, too, would cause a
dilution in absolute temporal power which the totalitarian regime demands
lhesefreedoms are, in truth, unruly forces, the source of gravest danger
to those who 5 and in their way.

I Mention these obvious ma ters to emphasize a less obvious point:
tnct the most important differeice between the democracies and Nazi Germany
and bctuccn the democracies and Communist Russia is to be found in the

existenet of civil rights in the democracies and their absence in totalitarian

countries. That difference overshadows even the vital differences in



economic and social organization n— differences which I in no way intend

to belittle. But -he latter differences are likewise great when we compare
this country with the democratic socialist countries of western Europe.

for in the latter, many industries have been socialized and free enterprise,
as we know it, has to a degree disappeared. Yet in spite of that great
difference, the civil rights of the individual under these socialist regimes
have, without exception I think, continued to flourish, political opposition
has been unhampered, the press has not been shackled, and the churches have
riua'ned open.

Yes, in spite of the fact that radically different political and

economic programs have emerged in the socialist democracies of western


Europe, we in this country have a close identity with them. fie have similar
traditions of fair play, of due process. Dignity and worth of the individual
are first in our scale of values. we respect his rights not only when
“sserted against his fellow men, but also when asserted against his government.
He has, contrary to thk totalitarian philosophy, rights which frequently
place him in opposition to the community.
I do not emphasize the importance of civil rights in the democratic

scheme of things to lecture Russian or other totalitarian regimes on plat

deem to be their inadequacieso The peoples of each land are entitled
to work out their own destiny. I hope we are always tolerant of their
attempts. As measured by the standards of wes,ern civilization, some are
in their infancy -— just beginning to walk, so to speak, after being freed
from the chains of a slavery centuries old° These people of the world have

different beginnings, different backgrounds, different heritages and traditions,



It took English—speaking peoples seven or eight centuries to win their
Bill of Rights. Others who are just emerging from serfdom or who are

still in slavery would, if given their freedom tomorrow, have a lon, and

painful path to travel before they enjoyed the full blessings of liberty.

Traditions or habits of thought cannot be purchased or imported. They
are products of time and of experience.

hy'emphasis on the fact that our civil rights are our most distinctive
characteristic is to underline not our superiority but our responsibility.
We must be alert that we do not emulate totalitarian regimes by curtailing
the press, by suppressing free speech, by persecuting a minority, whether
racial or political. 'Jc must make sure our civil rights are exto-
groups, regardless of race, creed, color or political faith. He
Curtain that the glory of our civil rights is not confined to their illustrious
history but is found in their application in the voting booths, assembly halls,
and courts of the country, in their obServance throughout the precincts and
county Seats of the land, in the respect which the citizens of our villages
and cities give to them.

The responsibility for making our civil rights an active, potent
force in our national life is in large measure a special responsibility
of the Bar.

A fairly recent episod- in a western town illustrates what I mean,
thong} it is, I hope and believe, an isolated one. A man was hailed into
court on a minor charge which could not be proved, even though he was not
granted the privilege of having counsel defend him. But the prosecutor and

the judge were convinced that the community should be rid of the man.



Their prejudice against him was not color or race. Nor was he a vagrant.
He was gainfully employed and had no police record. But he had physical
characteristics which gave him an unwelcome eppearancc. And to some his
ungainly, shuffling walk made him appear to be a menacing figure. The judge,
the prosecutor and the sheriff had a conference. The judge instructed the
sheriff to take the defendant to the county line and advise him that he
‘xould be jailed if he ever returned to that county. The sheriff obeyed.

an ignorant men -— a mai without friends, influence, money,
or counsel. was stripped of his liberties, not by private citizens but
by a court. That was done not by the standards of law nor in accordance with
constitutional procedural requirements, but by totalitarian methods. It is,
of course, shocking to cvcr‘ene when a court becon s a axless agent
of a community. But equally shocking to me was that in this instance no
lawyer in the community raised his voice in protest.

We are apt to think of legislat res, of the police, or of other
agents of the executiVe, as the tyrants to be feared. But judges too can
be tyrants. And a bar which is cowed by a lawless judge is not worthy of
its great traditions.

It was the fear of courts, as well as the fear of prosecutors, police,
and lecislatures, Wdich led to the inclusion in our Bill of Rights of
numerous procedure safeguards for criminal trials. Theywvcre, as Madison
stated, safegufrds interposed between the people and ”the magistrate who
exercises the sovereign powers.” They were embedded in our charter of
government to place than beyond legislative reach.


he requirement of indictment by grand jury, the protection against

Self-incrimination, the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures,


the requirement for a speedy and public trial, the necessity that an
accused be confronted with the witnesses against him, the right to
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, trial by jury,
the right to counsel -— these are among the basic safeguards provided by
the Constitution for protection of an accused against his government.
Life and liberty, not property alonc, thus receive the protection of due
process of law»


History has shown that without procedural saieguards neither

judges nor juries can be trusted to note out justice, that injustices
flourish where procedural requirements are relaxed. Antedating the Bill
of Rights was a long record of arbitrary action by courtsa Fresh in the
memory of the Fathers was the free use by courts of criminal punishments
to suppress speech, yress, and religion, the whisking away of defendants
to far away places for trial, the use of torture to exact confessions, and
tho like. The sponsors of the Bill of Fifihts agreed in large measure

" C

with the Nhig philosophy of Lord Camden that the unfettered discretion of

a judge is "the low of tyrants”. The tyrannies which afflicted the

administration of justice had been tyrannies which courts had silently
aoproved or actively promoted“

Procedure is more than formality. Procedure is, indeed, the great
mainstay of substantive rights. If accusation and proof were easy, if
the right to counScl were denied, if proof were not subjected to close
scrutiny, if the accused, rather than the prosecution, carried the burden ——
then racial, religious or political prosecutions could easily become the

order of the day. Execting procedural requirements prevent prosecutors,



judges, and juries from taking short cutsa They stand as a barrier to
hasty, inflamed community action. They‘ere some guarantee that a man's
day in court be a real and genuine opportunity to defend and not e mere
ritual to conceal a predeterminition of guilt. Without procedural safeguards
of the character embodied in our Bill of Rights, liberty would rest on
precarious ground and substantive rights would be inperilled. Without
these protections the poor and the ignorant, those charged with heinous crimes,
those whose ideas ere despised by the community, those whose race, color,
r lifiion, or politics make them an unpopular or suspected minority'rould
more likely be victims of discrimination.

History denies that these restraints defeat the ends of justice by
crippling the prosecution and discouraging the detection of crime and the
conviction of criminalso All they do defeat are the la y habits of these

police who prefer to use a whip rather than their wits to solve a mystery”

Those who chrnpion the constitutional rights of minorities, who

insist that members of all minority groups, including Communists and Fascists,
be given a fair trial, who maintain that bar associations should actively
concern themselves nith protection in criminal trials of constitutional
rights of those unable to protect themselves, are often severely criticized.
They are, in fact, frequently dubbed Communists, fellow-travellers, or
other subvorsiVe agentss

It is ironic that such criticism should be made, especially in
legil circles. For both Communism and Fascism, as practiced, are obviously
the negation of the whole philosophy of the Bill of Rights. Certainly he

rhu mainttins that the bill of Rights should be enforced with vigor



and given full vitality is championing the democratic schere of things,

not Communism or Fascism. He is a disciple of "honas Paine nd of Tho1as

J-:f 'erson, not of lenin or of Hitler. One night as well maintain tiat he

who is cherg: d with treason should have no defender, even though the
Constitution surrounds him with SJccial safeguards, and that he tho defends
him is likewise suspect.

If tth had been the Anglo—Accrican tr? dit ion, one of the most
brilliant chapters in liberty would never have been written. I refer to the
c1urevcous and powerful dvocacy of Thomas Erskine in Jestninster 1% 11 in
the eighteenth century —— a crucial chapter in history recently brought
vividly to life by Stryker in his stirring book, For The Defense. Erskine
wi,hout iear and without cor1promise, opposed his goveLnJo nt, feccrl a nation

are sod to It vcr pitch OVer the s DOC ctre of revolution, and defended without
flinchinq the rights of Thomas Paine and other eighteenth century champions
of liberty. The victories Erskine won gave freedom of speech and of press
new vitality. Even the co Jiction of’ i1.es Paine, in spite of Erskine 's
brilliant defense, .77ay. Pave had a sooeri ng effect on Englis h thouthta
In any event, it is plain that as a consequence of his moving advocacy, freedom
of speech and of press became reel guarantees that man could without fear of
punishment criticize his rulers for their practices. Those freedoms became
the tools whereby the people -— the source of all the powers of rovernmcnt,
as Thouis Paine loquentlv 1Ii: ta.i1ed -— could be a potent, active force

in tht eff irs of state. They became the means for curbing a lawless or
oppr;ssive government, for promoting reforms, for making liberty more secure

evrn for th» hunblest citiZen.



Such was the power of advocacy of th; great Ers kinc. The rewards
of a vocacy today in the field of civil liccrtics can b- as enduring.
Coura :eous advocacy by a militant Bar can give us, through consistent
application of the sill of m1hts, rtneved clfim to the decencic s of
w~:stern civilizc tion. Such performance on our part will, indeed, make
the Bill of Rights Tn increa ingly potent iorce in nor lda ffzirsn

The illness of the world cannot be cured by material things alone.

flnt food, of coursc, And food they must inve.
phil>sopher and statesman has put it —— a full rice b£Wl is the beginning

n)t the and of me n's Sbrl"tlv. Mcn also want frcedemq And none has yet

designed a more open road to freedom the n that sugg estod by our Bill of Rights.

1Ri jet est blis hed? Do thirl-degree pr cti ices g;jo on behind

doors of p;lice stations? Are the Jdi us {enerel warrants
reentering the Anerichn scene? Does the police system follow totalitarian
lines by puttinv fJTCu ahead of brains in crin; r1a3tection? Do prisoners --

H‘ “.:“ttt r Uh t tngir re .ce, wealth, or social stenfiing —— enjoy the right to

c>unswli Are juries drawn within discriminetion? Is there censurship of

' 1

tie community?
one committees ire getting »' ‘.L T :s.rcrs t: '1' of these
QI ULStiURS nni the inf rm tivn the; have : .' a is enebling then to

pr ceeJ with inttlligent, prectioel pr _r:ns of ref rm.



Nene of these questions presents major problems in many communities.
But in many others they do. Some of them can be corrected by simple
precedurel changes. Others involve more drastic reforms. one may even
entail a recducaticn cf a community. But whether the particular ask is
big or smell, it has peculiar challenge to the Bar. It is in keeping
with the g cat treeitien of the Bar for it to became the vanguard of these
ladisen in championing the Bill of Rights sta ed that "The prescription
favor 0f liberty ought to be levelled against that quarter where the
eatest danger lies, namely that which possesses the highest prerogative
or pager." Anl so the Bill of Rights is not only a curb a all executive
agencies, on the legislatures, and on the cnurts. It is in its ultimate
reach a check em a majority of the pcnple —— the source of all sovereignty——
in favor of a minorityc
The Bar can rceducete nerica in that tradition. By its alvececy
the Bar Cln give Clio: assurance that we'will not sacrifice the great
pquJSu of the Bill sf Rights eVen when *~ 1"1 with.the minority that
seeks t9 2 -, ani divide us. It can make sure that neither race,

CUlJF, relivinn, n»r palitical faith will affect the measure of justice

in America.


 ‘ mm (Emmi of figs 11mm §tates
Supt .

Iihtslyhtgtmt,fl Q”.

FEB N 512”! ",8

V cmMngs OF THE



 Supreme Court of the United States





 Supreme Court of the United States

M emorandunf



 Supreme Court of the United States




 SupTeme Court of the United States





44m; w

Ov‘5\ .103 \T‘.\|€C\‘m \M? CCYYQSE’DnCJO/ICQFL’L - .



Supreme Court of the United States




Nttalgingtunfll US.




JUN 9 3 58 PH Hm



i) 21 if or :1 :13 J


 Supreme Court of the United States


b/ l lit/LLB


Justice Douglas said that it is
not necessary to note his nonparticipa-
tic-n in the cert. vote last Saturday.

Sp a r r owe


Jun It? 5! u? A! W;



 Supreme Court of the United States


III‘. Chie f Jus