xt7msb3wtd0h_65 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. Rosenbergs v. United States text Rosenbergs v. United States 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_228/Folder_7/Multipage8117.pdf 1952 1952 1952 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_65 xt7msb3wtd0h EMANUEL H. BLOCH


May 11, 1953

Hon. Fred M. Vinson
Chief Justice of the

Supreme Court of the United States
Washington, D.C.

Dear Judge Vinson:

I have been served today with a copy of a "Motion for Leave
to File Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petition for a
writ of Habeas Corpus and Brief in Support of Motion" in the
matter of United States of America ex rel Irwin Edelman for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus for the release of Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg by one Fyke Farmer, Esq. of Nashville, Tennessee.

Mr. John F. Finerty and I are the sole counsel for Julius and
Ethel Rosenberg who have petitioned this Court for a Writ of
Certiorari, October 1952 Term, No. 687, presently pending.

Mr. Finerty and I are the only attorneys who have been author—
ized to represent the Rosenbergs.

The petition filed by Mr. Farmer is without authorization or
consent by either counsel or by our clients, Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg. I was taken aback, therefore, when I read in Mr.
Farmer's petition the following language:

"(b) Relator presents this motion on behalf of the
said Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.....”

It further occurs to me that any application to be made on

the grounds asserted by Mr. Farmer should be properly addressed
to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York under either Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure or Section 2255, Title 28, U.S.C.

I trust that this will clarify any confusion that may exist in
the mind of the Court by virtue of the filing of this petition

by Mr. Farmer.

Most respectfully yours,

girl r {32.


cc — Solicitor General
of the United States

Washington, D.C.


 June 13, 1953~

Memorandum to the Conference:

Re: No. 687, Rosenberg v. United States

Since some statements of position on the motion for
stay are being filed, I ask that the following statement be
added at the end of the order:

"Mr. Justice Douglas. I would grant a

stay and hear the case on the merits, as I

think the petition for certiorari and the

petition for rehearing present substantial

questions. But since the Court has decided

not to take the case, there would be no end

served by hearing oral argument on the motion

for a stay. For the motion presents no new

substantial question not presented by the

petition for certiorari and by the petition

WilliaAm) @nglas

for rehearing."



 Smmte (Quart of the MD States
fiashhtgton 13, E. Q}





a C! 11 8

“ably Dr*j

rant car


May 22’ 533waoan

Memorandum to the Conference: [E‘quf S SSy5M

Re: Rosenberg v. United States EOHZULWBIHD
Sobell v. United States
Brother Douglas' memorandum of this date in these
cases has just been brought to me while at the luncheon of
thee National Conference of Judicial Councils. I withdrew
from the luncheon long enough to dictate what follows:
Plainly what Brother Douglas has written creates
a new situation. This is merely an interim caveat on my
part that the situation in regard to these cases calls for

entire reconsideration.



 «if 4 f? fr}:

May 22’ 19530
Re: No. 687 — Rosenberggv. United States

After having reached what I had assumed was the end
of a long and laborious intellectual journey, I must now, in
View of Brother Douglas's memorandum, retrace it in light of
the new situation created by that memorandum. The whole busi-
ness having the implications that it has I ought to sleep over
it so as to bring the coolest and most responsible judgment to
bear of which I am capable. But one thing is pellucidly clear

to me. Brother Douglas's change of position obviously requires

a reopening of the discussion at Conference.





Re: No. 687 - Rosenberg v. United States

My brethren may well be bored to have me repeat that the Court's failure
to take the case of the Rosenbergs has presented for me the most anguishing situa—
tion since I have been on the Court.

Here I to consult merely my own conviction - I would have no difficulty,
let alone anguish. I would set forth the reasons for my profound regret over
the denial of this petition. And this not because I have any reason to believe
that the judgment would not be affirmed or have any basis for assuming that I
would not join in affirmance. This is a case, if ever there was one, in which
the Court's better wisdom should not allow these sentences of death, for what in
effect are convictions for treason in times of quasi—peace, to be carried out
without putting behind these sentences the moral authority that would come from
a finding by this Court, after an examination of the record and hearing argument,
that there was no flaw in the trial that calls for reversal. This conviction de-
rives from the fact that the Court of Appeals in both the two opinions which went
against the Rosenbergs saw fit to make observations which naturally enough arouses
disquietude in minds that are as fiercely hostile to the Communist danger as are
Messrs. Jenner, McCarthy and Velde, but who are also concerned for those American \
traditions which make them hostile to Communism.

Unfortunately I cannot give expression to my convictions in this case as
though I were dealing with the case in isolation and as a legal abstraction.

There are two other factors of which I must take account.

In the first place, here are my strong views on the bearing of noting

one's dissent in a denial of certiorari in relation to the working of the certi-

’ orari system. Secondly, even were I to attempt to state in this case, as I have
on rare occasions, what the denial of certiorari does not mean — it does not mean
approval by us of what is challenged here — in this case I could not do so without
running the risk of feeding those flames of disquietude and passion and disunity
in the country which are themselves so disquieting about our future. So far as

the present certiorari petition is concerned, I would have to set out with particu-

r A g. is .4“ -

'P z .y,



 33“: 3337i
larity conduct by United States Attorney Saypol whichgso “all” so unrhetorical,

Mai .

so unsoft, so esteemed a judge as Tom Swan libeund it negxesysarygto condemn: con-

1 \ \

. ,- ‘ .!
in. u “a —

..)~ .

3H1 1“ g "“‘-$'
duct which the Government saw fit not to deny, guamhsaéh 3which the Government

saw fit not to contradict. Considering the siege of fear which so extensiveLy
holds otherwise sensible people in its grip — fear if of nothing else, fear of

the people who exploit fear -rit may well be that by setting forth the truth about
Saypol's inexcusable conduct I might help to make a hero of him, as Judge Medina
has been made a hero of for conduct in which no English judge would dare indulge,
no matter‘what his passion or his egotism.

There is,perhaps, an even more important consideration: For me to set
forth what is now buried in dudge Swan's opinion in the Federal Reporter, would
in all likelihood, no matter what little skill I might be able to employ in try-
ing to disavow misconceptions, lead higheminded and patriotic laymen who do not
understand these things to believe that I implied that the Rosenbergs were cone
victed though innocent. I should like to emphasize that I am not concerned with
the distortions to which I would lay myself open by Communist propaganda in this
country. I am one of those who deems it ignominious to be awed by fear of the_
puny force of Communist influence in this-country. I am, however, concerned about
men and women as higheminded as fiany of us, though with less understanding of law
and its workings, who feel as I do that it is a concession to Communism, not a
safeguard against it, to retreat from reason and to compromise those cherished
traditions which one likes to think of as the peculiar characteristics of an
Anglo-American justice.

‘ After much travail of soul I have decided not to write regarding the
denial of this petition for certiorari. I am happy to be allowed to state
that Brother Black, having generously agreed with the course of reasoning I have
indicated, has concluded that he too will not write. He joins me in having the

following appended to the order denying certiorari:

"Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Frankfurter, referring to

the positions they took when these cases were here last November,

adhere to them. 344 U.S. 889.”

F. F.


 June 15, 1953.


In stating in the last paragraph of the proposed order in
the Rosenberg case that "Thereupon" the Court denied the application,
the meaning is clearly conveyed that the Court, including those who
believe that the application should be heard, denied the stay. But
Black, Jackson and I did not vote to do so, and Burton did not so
vote simpliciter.

I therefore suggest a rearrangement of the order whereby the
last paragraph will follow or'be made part of the second paragraph.
To carry out this purpose I enclose a redraft of the circulated


F. F.



October Term, 1952.

Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg,

v. )

The United States of America.

On Application for a Stay.

An application for stay of execution was filed herein on June 12,
1953. It was referred to mr. Justice Jackson, the appropriate Circuit
Justice. Mr. Justice Jackson referred it to the Court for consideration
and action, with the recommendation "that it be set for oral hearing on
Monday, June 15, 1953, at which time the parties have agreed to be ready
for argument."

Upon consideration of the recommendation, the Court declined to
-hear oral argument on the application.

Thereupon, the Court gave consideration to the application for
the stay, and denies it.

Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, and Mr. Justice
Burton, agreeing with Mr. Justice Jackson's recommendation, believe that

the application should be set for hearing on Monday, June 15, 1953.



 JUNE 17. 1953

The Chief Justice direct: that it be announced that the
Supreme Court will convene e Speeiei Term of the Court on Thun-
dey. June 18th. et noon. in order that an application by the Attorney
Generei to review the stay of execution of Julius Rosenberg end
Ethel Roeenherg. granted by Mr. Justice Doogiee. or to reconsider
end uelfiem thie Court's order of June mu. denying e etey. my be







'x ($552 L< /C((:¢c‘

335mm Quart of ti}? 33am: fiiates
Wmh‘mgton 13, 23. Q}.




Q :KL(.

as aw ,

‘ \,-__ _,___-. 4..-...J_:_L

., L",
£’({,6H((‘(,‘c.?/c/( l'f/K
/ a

Y/lL, ('qu

' a

“’1: (/CM—a

((1.,1 (’4 /fi( /. ((f K ’1 f‘ /.l_ ., .7 (I

m. y/

,441’} ‘ iii—fr / (4.” ._ . ,- (f/

a; .
. .. , I,
C -" (K 1, iii/(4 :1 4:";

, I! \
$4,. ’4 1. /, ” r
I' ,-

f/(fifif .51/1-7 . (4/42/17 , . L44~M



 The Chief Justice directs that it be announced

that the Supreme Court will convene a Special Term of

the Court on Thursday, June 18th, at noon, in order

that an application by the Attorney General to review
the stay of execution of Julius Rosenberg and Ethel
Rosenberg, granted by Mr. Justice Douglas, or to re-
consider and reaffirm this Court's order of June 15th,

denying a stay, may be considered.

June 17, 1953 - 6:00 P.M,




JUNE 18, 1953

The Chief Justice directs that it be announced that the
Supreme Court will convene a Special Term of the Court on
Thursday, June 18th, at noon, in order that an application by the
Attorney General to review the stay of execution of Julius Rosenberg

and Ethel Rosenberg, granted by Mr. Justice Douglas, or to recon-

sider and reaffirm this Court‘s order of June 15th, denying a stay,

may be considered.















 June 19, 1953

'The Chief Justice

Mr. Justice Reed .
Mr. Justice Burton \

Mr. Justice Clark

Mr. Justice Minton

Re: No. , June 18 Special Term, 1953.
Rosenberg v. United States.

I would like to talk with you this afternoon

about the attached opinion.

Robert H. Jackson

No. —~, .1111 18 14111211111 Tenn, 1953.

1 ()n App1ication to Convene Court

Ju1ius Roseiroerg and in Speeia1 Term and to Review

15the1 R05e1111e1'1 Stay of Execution Granted

11V 3111‘. Justice Douej1as or to

1111ittd States ot T)eeo151ue1 and Pea1‘111'111

‘1merie1 (ourt 5 Order of June
Denying a Stay.



[June 1'11, 1953.]

By 11:. 111151110; JACKSON, 111101113111. 1115101: :1111:\‘1o\

tial that this Court cannot {111011 it to stand a: th 1e basis
upon which 101.er eourtsmust conduct further 101 13—11 1111111

he so1e around stated was that perhaps—U11.Jt‘s'r1CE
D111;(L\.5 did not resoh ’1 his on 11 doub ts—the r1ae se shou1 1d
be governed by the Atomic L11 e1 {11, Act of Aurfu st 1 1011')
instead of by the earher Espionage Act. He agrees with
the Government that the crime here invoked was com—
menced June (3. 1041'. ’1his 11 as mo1e than No 111-3115
before the Atomic Eneigy Act “as passed. A11 01 mt
acts on which the Government relies took p111ee as ear1y
as January 1045.

The Constitution. Art. .1. £0. prohibits passa <10 of anv
(’1‘ post faclo Act. 11' Congress hadt1 'iiedr 111 1516 to make
transactions of 11.111 and 1514.3 offenses. we \‘.'ou1d rue
been ohhe'ed to set such an Act. aside. To ooen the
door to letroactite crimin 11 statu .es \"ou1d 11311t1v be
regarded as a most 5c11011s1)10\\ to one 01 the 01111 1iberties
prottettd by our Constitution. 1et the S010 ground of
this stay is that the Atomic Energy Act may have retro-

spective apphcation to conspiracies in which the on1y

1111s sta ' \t'as granted upon 1ega1 91 ounds so 1115' t1)5t1n—


 [Jt's'rien J_-\c1;sox]

overt acts were committed before that statute was

The Atomic Energy Act does not. by text or intention.
supersede the earlier Espionage Act. It does not purport
to repeal the earlier Act. nor afford any grounds for spell—
in;" out a repeal by implication. Each Act is complete
in itself and each has its own reason for existence and
field of operation. Certainly prosecution. conviction and
sentence under the law in existence at the time of the
overt acts is not. improper. It is obvious that an attempt
to prosecute under the later Act would in all probability

This stay is not and could not be based upon any doubt
that a legal conviction was had under the Espionage Act.
Application here for review of the Court of Appeals deci—
sion affirming the conviction was refused. 344 E. S. 838,
and rehearing later denied. 344 [7. S. 889.

Later. responsible and authorized counsel raised. among
other issues. questions as to the sentence. and an applica-
tion was made to me for stay until they could be heard.
I referred the application to the full Court. with the rec—
ommendation that the full Court hold immediate hearing);
so that the Court as an institution could make a prompt
and final disposition of all questions. This was supported
by four Justices and failed for want of one more, Mn.
.lt's'rieia Dot‘ths recording his view tha “there would
be no end served by hearing oral argum Int on the motion
for a stay." Sup. Ct. J.. June 15, 1933. p. 254.

Thus. after being in some form before this Court over
nine months. the merits of all questions raised by the
Rosenbergs‘ counsel had been passed upon.

There is another reason. apart from the laclc of sub—
stantiality of the question. why this order should be set
aside. It was granted solely on the petition of one
Edelman, who sought to appear as “next friend" of the



Rosenbergs. Of course. there is power to allow an ap—
pearance in that capacity. under circumstances which
make it appropriate. to enable the Court to hear a pris—
oner's case. But in these circumstances the order which
grants Edelmans standing further to litiga c this case in
the lower courts cannot be justified.

Edelman is a stranger to the Rosenbergs and to their
case. His intervention was unauthorized by them and
originally opposed by their counsel. What may be Edel—
man’s purpose in getting himself into this litigation is not
explained, although inquiry was made at the bar. It
does not appear that his own record is entirely clear or
that he would be a helpful or chosen champion. See
Edclman \'. California. 344 l'. S. 357.

The attorneys who appear for Edelman tell us that for
two months they tried to get the authorized counsel for
the Rosenbergs to raise this issue but were refused. They
also inform us that they have eleven more points to
present hereafter. although the authorized counsel do not
appear to have approved such issues.

The Rosenbergs throughout have had able and zealous
counsel of their own choice. These attorneys originally
thought this point ha ,l no merit and perhaps also that it
would obscure the better points on which they yere en-
deavoring to procure a hearing here and which four Jus—
tices thought worthy of hearing on argument. Of course,
after a. Justice of this Court had granted Edelman stand-
ing to raise the question and indicated that he is impressed
by its substantiality. counsel adopted the argument; they
also shared the counsel table with the Edelman lawyers
thus admitted as attm'neys—at—large to their case. The
lawyers who have ably and courageously fougnt the Ros—
enbergs' battle throughout then had the humiliating
experience at this bar of hearing the newly importel
counsel make an argument which plainly implied lack of


 [Jt's'rieii JACKSON]

und rstanding' or zeal on the part of the retained counsel.
They simply had been elbowed out of the control of their

Every lawyer familiar with the workings of our crim-
inal courts and the habits of our bar will agree that this
precedent presents a threat to orderly and responsible
representation of accused persons and the right of them—
selves and their counsel to control their own cases. The
lower court refused to accept Edelman's intrusion but by
the order in question must accept him as haying standing
to take part in. or to take over. the Roseabergs case.
That such disorderly intervention is more lil'ely to prej—
udice than to help the representation of accused persons
in highly publicized cases is self-evident.

Vacating thi: stay is not to be construed as indorsing
the wisdom or amn'opriateness to this case of a death sen-
tence. That sentence. howeyer. is permitted by law and.
as was previously pointed out. is therefore not within this
Court's power of revision. 344 U S. 889.




‘7‘ I"!‘
JL‘ .J J It


\J I.)


t 3 M15


 "o 4 ,—


~sz.Lv 6





3 t

o vacat









gch m



owe I‘




tc preserve




, 11V

‘ A w




 ”‘Wuld think Justi' Douglas

01 \l
a matter ,

- ,1' .‘ .3 .3.
Tcaulhvo-. u



L) 9 I18 i:

"V31 - , 4. ' .7.

1"." k )U 1 Ci






11:1 {2

.A. V,» A v“







 “ l”

t: the

H.523 1%-






i 1317:? f‘ ""


 4// 7/;3 _

The ‘Attorney General advises me from the White House that the aoplic—

ation for clemency has been under active consideration by the Pessident for about
3* b(2\\

hB hours, an& that no decision wiln—be reached XXE as to the time for execution,

and that this will not be determined until the Presid§:nt concludes his action

on the Detition for clemency.

I am not authorited to make this information publico





My dear Mr. Chief Justice:

The Blade commented editorially the
other day on the Supreme Court's majority
opinion clarifying the matter of the stay of ex—
ecution in the Rosenberg case granted by Justice

It occurred to us that you might like
to see the editorial so I am enclosing a tearpage.
It was entitled "Affirming Due Process."

c rdially/“S

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

Supreme Court
Washington 25, D. C.


 July 28. 1953

Mr. Barry R. Roberts.
Public Relations Director.
Toledo Blade.

Toledo. Ohio.

Dear Mr. Roberts:

Thank you for your letter of July 24th with which you en-
closed a ten-page from the Blade containing an editorial on
"Affirming Due Process. " I appreciate very much. indeed,
your sending this to me.

I thought you might be interested in seeing a complete
copy of my opinion in the Rosenberg case. and I am enclosing
one herewith.

With kind re go rd: .


(Signedl Eyed M. Xinson






age 0

f " p i n i o n


TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1953


PAGE 16 |


Separating The Hot Rodders

Days Of The Old Pros


NDER the auspices of the West Toledo Ki-
wanis Club and with the co-operation of the
Toledo police department and the sheriff’s office,
local “hot rodders” will be given ,the opportunity
to demonstrate their prowess on a “drag strip"
along Starr Avenue next Sunday.
A stretch of the avenue is to be closed off for

a supervised hot rodders’ field day, which has
been staged sucoessfully in other cities. Every

hot rodder in this vicinity, so we read, will'be
permitted to show what his “souped—up” car
will do without any traffic cop interference.
And in the process, so we understand, the “true”
hot rodders are going to prove that they are
careful drivers who take pride in the cars they
rebuilt and not to be confused with youthful
maniacs of the streets and highways who are

erroneously termed hot rodders by the untutored.

Frankly, we include ourselves among those
Toledoans who need such a demonstration. If
it is safe for youthful drivers to race their souped-
up cars along a closed—off street, we are open to
conviction. If it is sane for them to do whatever
they do on a drag strip, they can dispel some
fantastic stories which have been circulated
about such activities. And we are prepared to
concede in advance that anything which will in—
culcate a sense of responsibility in youthful
drivers is to be encouraged.

In other words, we think the West Toledo
Kiwanis Club and the police department and the
sheriff’s 'office are doing a good thing in giving
the true hot rodders the opportunity to dissipate
the not unnatural skepticism of the public, our-
selves included, which, stems in large measure
from their own terminology. But the difference
can be made even clearer, it seems to us, if our
law enfofcement authorities, having done some—
thing for the true hot rudders, will now under—
take to do more about the other variety.

, Sun Strings—On Walbridge

, EN TENNTAL anniversaries have been observed

by many northwestern Ohio towns. But

neighboring Walbridge will mark its 40th mile-
stone this week. ,


This Wood County village actually was carved I

out of Indian wilderness. The first settler came
in-1846 to acquire land at $1.25 an acre and a
Government deed signed by Andrew Jackson.
The community’s first railroad ——— the Toledo and
Ohio River (now the Pennsylvania) -— came in
1870, followed two years later by the Hocking
Valley (now the Chesapeake and Ohio).
Because of its proximity to Toledo’s lake ship-
‘ ping facilities, Walbridge became a rail switching
center. The town grew. By 1913 its citizens no
longer could resist higher taxes of a community
needing water, electrical power, and health
standards. Walbridge, incorporated, was ready
tog‘take its place in the sun.

Sometimes the sun has been a rare visitor to
Walbridge because of the heavy smoke of busy
railroads. Housewives moaned as they hung out
the Monday wash, but not too loudly. They
knew the curling smoke meant bread and butter
for their families. More important, the smoke
meant vital shipments of coal to the industrial
Midwest and to steel furnaces for the weapons

' ofvthree victorious wars. "
, ‘Progress brought diesel locomotives and elimi-
nated smoke. Now the sun truly shines on Wal-
bridge. But it may never shine brighter than
on Wednesday when its 1,138 residents —- headed
by Mayor Chalmer Metzger and Civic Club
President Walter Barnes, roll out the welcome
mat for Gov. Frank J. Lausche to dedicate its
volunteer-built community park amid colorful
ce ony.

' Affirming Due Process


,HE DETAILED, majority opinion issued by
Chief Justice Fred M. Vinson keeps the
record straight on one issue in the Rosenberg
' case about which there had best be no confusion.
That regards the dramatic stay of execution
which Justice Douglas gave when, in his view, an
eleventh—hour legal doubt was raised,

Two days after Douglas’ action the full court
met in special session at the request of the
Attorney General. The court majority disagreed
with Douglas on the legal technicality, set aside
his stay, and the Rosenbergs were executed.
What Chief Justice Vinson has now emphasized
is the propriety of Douglas’ action and the pro-
priety of the way the court disposed of it.

We aren’t so much concerned with the latter
as the former. Justice Douglas came in for
severe criticism because of his action; in fact,
one congressman started impeachment pro-
ceedings against him. Such criticism is unfair
, to Douglas, who acted within his authority and
out of a legal doubt that he thought should be
resolved in court. Such criticism is dangerous to

due process itself, for if judges are to be attacked
for unpopular rulings then Lady Justice might
as well throw’ away her scales.

Commonweal magazine recently summed it up
this way: “Protection of due process of law is
more important than any conviction or execution,
however great the popular demand. Those who
attack the independence of the judiciary by such
weapons as impeachment threats are, hOWever
unwittingly, imperiling freedom in a way in—
finitely more difficult to detect than espionage.”
The Chief Justice, who disagreed with Douglas
on a point of law, is doing due process and free-
dom a service by reaffirming his colleague’s

right to raise that point.


Published Every Afternoon and Sunday at
Superior, Beech and Huron (4) Telephone ADams 1121

PAUL BLOCK, Publisher, [9236-1941
Paul Block, Jr., and William Block, Publishers

Grove Patterson, Editor-in-Chlei
Michael Bradshaw, Editor

L. F. Newmycr, Advertising Director
Daniel Nicol], Associate Publisher

EDITORIAL—Paul A. Schracler, Director of News;
Edward P. Fallon, Managing Editor; George F. Jcnks.
assistant to the Publisher; John D, Willcy, City Editor;
Donald P. Wolfe, Slate Editor; F, L. Mollcnkopi, John M.
Harrison, Willis 5. Harrison, Associate Editors; Harry R.
Roberts Director of Public Relations r

CIRCULATION-Roy Kcst, Circulation Director; David
Austin. State; Edgar Stoddu , City; Paul Clark, Sunduy.

ADVERTlSll‘i('-~«l". 1., .ilTr‘vofnl-oui; H. Nowell Hoflm'r,

/ war.




General; l(cnm,.;. Unvxg. L il'iml.

BUSINESS OFFICE—Donald A. Wiley, Business Mon-
Alger; Amos Hamish, Treasurer; George Bliss, Asst.

Offices—New ank, ClTiZIEn, Philadelphia, Boston, Do-
t'rolt, Los Angolns, San Francisco, Washington, Kansal
City. Seattle and Dallas.


HE WAY THINGS went in Chicago over the
weekend — at Arlington and Comiskey Parks,
that is —— must have done a lot for sports fans
Whose faith in the maxim that class always tells
may have been shaken ever so slightly of late.
At Arlington on Saturday, in the presence of
almost 40,000 horse race fans, that handsome

gray colt named

Native Dancer ran away and

hid from the opposition in the richest of three-
year-old competitions ——- the Arlington Classic.
In thereby becoming, at such a tender age, fifth
leading money, winner among American thor—
oughbreds, the Dancer surely proved that jinxes
like the one which had operated in the past to

cam for this mile

-run the appellation “graveyard

of champions” just don’t operate against real


The lesson was taught again on Sunday to
nearly 55,000 baseball enthusiasts who gathered

at the south side

Sox play their hOme games.

last 35 games, the
the demolition of

park where the Chicago White
Winner of 29 of its
home team was set to complete
the reputation of the New York

Yankees, who plainly had been slipping of late.

What happened,

of course, was that Casey

Stengel’s poor little boys hung a couple of liCk-
ings on the White Sox and rolled on to Cleve—
land six games in front of everyone else.

Events in Chicago over the weekend did not
prove that Native Dancer will win every race in
which he runs or that the Yankees are sure to

win the pennant again this year.

They did

demonstrate once again that old pros —— the
good ones in sports — still can take care of
themselves more times than not.


Thomas L. Stokes


Functions Of RFC Defended


July 21—The Reconstruction

' Finance Corp., the world’s biggest bank,
has been quite


Thomas L.

a familiar landmark around

Congress is in the process of tearing it

down. In its records are
much of the history of the
last 20 years—of the great
depression, of the second
great world war, and, in most
recent times, a smattering
of scandal. Listening to de—
bate in the Senate over the
bill to dissolve the RFC
stirred up many memories of
its career. They go: back to
its creation by Congress in
January, 1932, at the request
of Herbert Hoover, one of

the desperate acts by the last Republican
president before General Eisenhower to try to
stem the tide of depression that swept him and
his administration out of office a few months


i It It

Ironically enough, it was the scandal that
developed around the RFC, the smell of politi-
cal “influence” about some of its loans, that
was a contributing factor 20 years later to the

rejection of Dem

ocrats and the return of Re-

publicans to power under General Eisenhower. '
The RFC became the subject of speeches,
essays and lectures on ethics in government
by some of our higher-minded dignitaries, the
horrible example—and it became also the butt

of jokes among the cynical which. for

:1 lillll‘,

made quite a political animal out of the mink.
You can remember.
It deserves better.

In the Senate

that debated the liquidation

of the RFC there is not a single Republican

member who was
when it was cre

here back in those grim days
ated, none who could recall,

vividly and firsthand, the atmosphere of that‘

era when it was

born. Only two Democrats

who were here then are still in the Senate——

Sens. Walter F.

George of Georgia and Carl

Hayden of Arizona.
' For a brief time, the RFC had a predecessor,
an organization called the National Credit As—

sociation, a pool

formed by the Hoover ad-

ministration with a group of bigr bankers in

October, 1931, in

an effort to check the surge

of business failures and the wave of bank
The circumstances were highly dra—

Secretary of T
the diminutive

. closings.
matic, at least to one who yvas in the middle
f that story.

. O O

reasury Andrew W. Mellon,
soft-spoken multimillionaire

who did not