xt7msb3wtd0h_1 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 - Hugo L. Black text Associate Justices - Hugo L. Black 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_160/Folder_8/Multipage1.pdf 1946-1953 1953 1946-1953 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_1 xt7msb3wtd0h §1Lprvmv Q’mtrf uf thr‘lluitch §tut25
llTaslg'utgfmtD. L'I.

CHAMBERS OF
.JUSTICE HUGO L.BLACK

October 28, l9h6

Dear Chief:

It seems to be necessary for me to assign Noso
23, 86, and 2L, and I therefore suggest the following:

No. 21 Champlin Refining Co. v. 0.8. Justice Jackson

No. 23) Gibson v. U.S. Justice Rutledge
86) Dodez v. 11.5.

No. 21; Halliburton Oil Well Justice Black
Cementing Co. v.
er

ﬁuqnwnw Quartnftheﬁhﬁhmg§hﬂ5§
WWW 13. 23. “l-

CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE HUGO L. BLACK

April b, 19h?

Dear Chief:
No. lb? Misc.—LudecKe v. Watkins.

In View of the Court's decision that
the District Court was without jurisdiction
to hear the Ahrens case, I think it very
important that the Ludecke case be set down
for argument at our next session. The
Ahrens decision will leave unsettled the
question concerning the present applicability
of the 1798 Act. Should we not hear and
decide the Ludecke case we would therefore
have to await decision on this important
question until the next term of court, and
I wish to urge that the Ludecke case be set
down for argument before the Ahrens opinion

goes down.
4/7ﬂ

i_I ‘»\\\\

HUGO L. BLACK

The Chief Justice.

CDV:§VVX\ K:A£J~W\\ﬁ“DéOOTJéBXJQMK‘.::§Q

ﬁnpreme Quart of it}; Wt: ﬁtaies
373339333333? ‘ 3 .118 <3

fi’L‘fx

Sumatra Quart of ﬂy: Whigﬂ‘cﬁeg

11-1

Wtwlmgtmt 13, I3 G: " mi;

: \2 7.5; P”-

CHAMBERS OF
JUSTICE HUGO L. BLACK

From: Black, 3-

Circul‘ki i / ,
’1» f"/_:'-
Recirculatsd:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 387.—OCTOBER TERM, 1951.

On Petition for Writ
of Certiorari to the
United States Court of
Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

William TValter Remington,
Petitioner,
v.

The United States of America.

[March 24, 1952.]

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
concurs. dissenting.

A federal district court grand jury indicted petitioner
for perjury. A petit jury convicted him. The Court of"
Appeals reversed but refused to order the indictment dis—
missed; 1.01 F. 2d 246. Petitioner is now seeking cer-
tiorari, claiming that the indictment should have been
dismissed. The majority now denies his petition. I
think we should grant and consider two questions the
petitioner presents. These questions challenge the fair-
ness of the prosecutorial methods used to obtain and to
sustain the indictment. These—challenges are: C

A “The Circuit Court of Appeals erred: ‘

“In failing to dismiss the indictment on the
ground that the foreman of the indicting grand jury,
at the very time the indictment was returned, was
the ﬁnancial and literary collaborator of the chief
prosecution witness in a book-publishing venture
whose success depended upon the defendant’s
indictment.”

The second challenge is:

“The United States Attorney deliberately Withheld
information concerning the collaboration of Bentley

387—DISSENT
REMINGTON v. UNITED STATES.

and Brunini from defendant’s counsel and then
sought to suppress the evidence when it became
known to defendant's counsel from other sources.”

Governmental conduct here charged is abhorrent to a fair
administration of justice. It approaches the type of prac—
tices unanimously condemned by this Court as a violation
of due process of law in ilfooncy v. Halo/tan, 294 U. S. 103.
For this reason I have felt constrained to depart from my
custom and give reasons for my vote to grant certiorari

in this case.

As to the legal signiﬁcance of a denial of the petition
for writ of certiorari, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER refers to
his memoranda in Alum/land v. Baltimore Radio Show,
Imz, 338 l'. S. 912, and Air/0815012, v. Pennsylvania, 340
1'. S. 844.

RECEIVED
HARZI 5 us PH ’52 . MAR. 2311917., j

CHAMBERS 9F THE
C‘H-I'E'FJUSTlCE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

N0. 387.——OCTOBER TERM, 1951.

William Walter Remington, On Writ of Certiorari
Petitioner, to the United States
7). Court of Appeals for

The United States of America. the Second Circuit.
[March —, 1952.]

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, dissenting.

A Federal District Court Grand Jury indicted petitioner
for perjury. A petit jury convicted him. The Court of
Appeals reversed but refused to order the indictment dis-
missed. 191 F. 2d 246. Petitioner is now seeking cer—
tiorari, claiming that the indictment should have been
dismissed. The majority now denies his petition. I
think we should grant and consider two questions the
petitioner presents. These questions challenge the fair-
ness of the prosecutorial methods used to obtain and to
sustain the indictment. These challenges are:

“The Circuit Court of Appeals erred:

“In failing to dismiss the indictment on the
ground that the foreman of the indicting grand jury,
at the very time the indictment was returned, was
the financial and literary collaborator of the chief
prosecution witness in a book-publishing venture
whose success depended upon the defendant’s
indictment.

“The United States Attorney deliberately withheld
information concerning the collaboration of Bentley
and Brunini from defendant’s counsel and then
sought to suppress the evidence when it became
known to defendant's counsel from other sources.”

387—DISSENT

2 REMINGTON v. UNITED STATES.

Governmental conduct here charged is abhorrent to a fair
administration of justice. It approaches the type of prac—
tices unanimously condemned by this Court as a Violation
of due process of law in Mooney V. Holohcm, 294 U. S. 103.
For this reason I have felt constrained to depart from my
custom and give my reasons to vote for granting certiorari
in this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 387.—OCTOBER TERM, 1951.

On Petition for lVrit
of Certiorari to the
United States Court of
Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

William \Valter Remington,
Petitioner,
v.
The United States of America.

[March 24, 1952.]

MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
concurs, dissenting.

A federal district court grand jury indicted petitioner
for perjury. A petit jury convicted him. The Court of
Appeals reversed but refused to order the indictment dis—
missed. 191 F. 2d 246. Petitioner is now seeking cer-
tiorari, claiming that the indictment should have been
dismissed. The majority now denies his petition. I
think we should grant and consider two questions the
petitioner presents. These questions challenge the fair-
ness of the prosecutorial methods used to obtain and to
sustain the indictment.

The ﬁrst challenge is:

“The Circuit Court of Appeals erred:

“In failing to dismiss the indictment on the
ground that the foreman of the indicting grand j ury,
at the very time the indictment was returned, was
the financial and literary collaborator of the chief
prosecution witness in a book-publishing venture
whose success depended upon the defendant’s
indictment.”

The second challenge is:

“r 11

ie I'nited States Attorney deliberately withheld
information concerning the collaboration of Bentley

REMINGTON v. UNITED STATES.

and Brunini from defendant’s counsel and then
sought to suppress the evidence when it became
known to defendant’s counsel from other sources.”

Governmental conduct here charged is abhorrent to a. fair
administration of justice. It approaches the type of prac-
tices unanimously condemned by this Court as a violation
of due process of law in rlfooney V. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103.
For this reason I have felt constrained to depart from my
custom and give reasons for my vote to grant certiorari
in this case.

As to the legal signiﬁcance of a denial of the petition
for writ of certiorari, MR. JUSTICE FRANKFURTER refers to
his memoranda in ﬁfaryland v. Baltimore Radio Show,
Inc, 338 U. S. 912, and Agoston v. Pennsylvania, 340
U. S. 844.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 387.—-—-OCTOBER TERM, 1951.

On Petition for \Vrit
0f Certiorari to the
United States Court of
Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

William \Valter Remington,
Petitioner,
v.

The ['nited States of America.

[March 24, 1952.]

MR. Jrrs'ricn BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS
concurs, dissenting.

A federal district court grand jury indicted petitioner
for perjury. A pctit jury convicted him. The Court of
Appeals reversed but refused to order the indictment dis-
missed. 191 F. 2d 246. Petitioner is now seeking cer—
tiorari, claiming that the indictment should have been
dismissed. The majority 110w denies his petition. I
think we should grant and consider two questions the
petitioner presents. These questions challenge the fair—
ness of the prosecutorial methods used to obtain and to
sustain the indictment.

The ﬁrst challenge is:

“r ‘1

1c Circuit Court of Appeals erred:

second challenge is:

“' ‘hc Ifnited States Attorney deliberately withheld
infori'nation concerning the collaboration of Bentley

REMINGTON v. UNITED STATES.

and Brunini from defendant’s counsel and then
sought to suppress the evidence when it became
known to defendant’s counsel from other sources.”

Governmental conduct here charged is abhorrent to a fair
administration of justice. It approaches the type of prac—
tices unanimously condemned by this Court as a violation
of due process of law in Mooney V. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103.
For this reason I have felt constrained to depart from my
custom and give reasons for my vote to grant certiorari
in this case.

As to the legal significance of a denial of the petition
for writ of certiorari, MR. JUSTICE F RANKFURTER refers to
his memoranda in 111 aryland V. Baltimore Radio Show,
Inc, 338 U. S. 912, and Agoston Y. Pennsylvania, 340
U. S. 844.

December 8, 1951.

MFMORAWDUM FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE

Mr. Waggaman has just telephoned me to
advise that due to the fact of inadequate facili—
ties at Arlington arrangements have had to be

changed and Mrs. Black's funeral is now scheduled

for 2:00 P.W. Monday at All Souls Unitarian Church,

internment to be in Arlington.

Willey

' The Black family has asked that instead of
sending flowers, persons wishing to do so should
send a contribution to the Community Chest. The
Marshal has asked Perry Lippitt to order flowers
for the Court any way. Perry is asking whether this
meets with the Justices' approval.

“I!
5

Mr. Chief Justice —

Burt Whittington is releasing the details of

Mrs. Black's funeral arrangements to the press.

He thinks he should include a statement as to whether
the Court will conduct any business on Monday and
also whether they will attend the funeral.

What do you think?

THE CHIEF JUSTICE

L’ an. MS!)

Mr. Chief Justice Vinson said:

Mrs. Black, wife of Mr. Justice Black, died on Friday last.

Josephine Foster Black was a sweet and gracious lady - every day of
her life. She combined the friendliness and warmth of the South with the
stern discipline of the Scotch Presbyterian faith. She carried herself with
dignity and brought to Washington a tolerance and understanding that made
her universally beloved. She walked as a lady in the most elegant of drawing
rooms and in the most humble of homes.

Her consuming interest was her family, and yet she found time for many
diverse activities outside the home. As a Gray Lady during the war years,
she brought comfort and sympathy to the sick and wounded. In community
causes, she was always found aiding the underprivileged. The oppressed
of all races and religions knew her instinctively as a friend. Yet in spite
of her wide interests and activites, she found time in recent years to develop

her talents as a painter. Her works of art are receiving wider and wider

recognition and reaching an ever-increasing audience.

Whatever her expression — whether as mother, wife, hostess, artist,
friend — it was always friendly and gentle. She showed by her life the great
richness of love.

As a mark of our sorrow and affection for our brother, Mr. Justice
Black, and his family, and our respect and affection for Mrs. Black, the
Court will transact no business today, will attend the funeral services in a

body, and will adjourn until tomorrow.

The Court will meet at 12:00 noon on Monday, December 10, 1951,
at which time the Chief Justice will make a statement expressing the regret
and sorrow of the Court on the death of Mrs. Black. As a mark of respect

and in tribute to the memory of Mrs. Black, the Court will transact no

business on Monday, but will adjourn until Tuesday, December 11th, at

12:00 noon.

Members of the Court will attend the funeral services in a body.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Deceml ier Ill. 1951;]

Mn. (‘iiiicr .lt‘s'riCt-z Vixsox said:

Mrs. Black. wife of Mn. Jt's'riCic BLACK, died on Friday
last.

Josephine Foster Black was a sweet and gracious lady—
every day of her life. She combined the friendliness and
warmth of the South with the stern discipline of the
Scotch Presbyterian faith. She carried herself with dig-
nity and brought to \Vashine'ton a tolerance and under—
standing that made her universally beloved. She, walked
as a lady in the most, elegant of drawing rooms and 1721
the most humble of homes.

ller consuming interest was her family. and yet she
found time for many diverse activities outside the home.
As a (.lray Lady during the war years. she brought com-
fort and sympathy to the sicl' and wounded. Tn com—
munity causes. she was always found aiding; the under—
privileged. The oppressed of all races and religions knew
her instinctively as a friend. Yet in spite of her wide
interests and activities. she found time in recent years
to develop her talents as a painter. Her works of art are
receiving wider and wider recognition and reaching an
ever—incrcasiup; audience.

Whatever her ext)ressiou—wliether as mother. wife,
hostess. artist. friend—it was always friendly and gentle.
She showed by her life the great richness of love.

As a mark of our sorrow and atfection for our brother,
Mu. .li‘s'rieic BLAt‘K, and his family. and our respect and
affection for Mrs. Black. the (‘ourt will transact no busi—
ness today. will attend the funeral services in a body, and
will adjourn until tomorrow.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

[Deeemher 1t). 1951.]

M11. (‘111121-‘J1's'1'11'1:Vixsox said:

Mrs. Black, wife of Mia. .lt's'i'ieia BLACK, died on Friday
last

Josephine 1 oster Black was a sweet11111l<.1111eiousl11d1'—
e1' my (1111' of her life. She (111111l1ined the 1'1iendliness 11nd
waiinth of the >1111th with the stern discipline of the
Scotch Presbyterian f'aith. She carried herself with dig-
nity and brought to \l'ashing'ton 11 tolerance and under—
standing that made her universally l1elo1'ed. She walked
11s a lady in the most elegant of drawing rooms and in
the most humble, of homes.

Iler consuming interest was her family. and yet she
found time for many diverse activities outside the, home.
As 11 Gray Lady during; the war 1' 1111's. she brought 00111-
t'ort and s1'111path1' to the siek and wounded in (10111—
1111111it1' 11111ses she was al11'111s found aidinp' the under—
privileged. lhe 11ppiesse1 d of all 111e.es,:n1d1'eli51'ions knew
her i11sti11eti1'el1' 11s 11 friend. Y et in spite of hei wide
interests and aeti1ities. she found time in reeent 1111115
to de1' (‘l0] 1 her talents as 11 painter. llei 111'11ks of 111t {110
1'1-1111i1in<1 wider and wider reeou'nition 11nd rea1hin{_r 1111
e111r~ine111si11;,1'111111i1111111.

\lhatmer her expressioi1~whether as mother. wife,
hostess. artist. friend~it was always friendly and gentle.
She showed by her life the 51'1'11111 riehness of love.

\s a mark 11f (1111 soirow and aheetion f111 (1111 lnother
\ln. It s111'1: lh 11 11'. and hist family 11111111111 respeet and

atteetion foi \lrs. lllatk. 1he(11111't will transaet nohusi—
111 ss t11d111' will attend thefuneial sel'11'1'esi1111l1od1'.11‘11d
will adiouin until tomoirow.

gaupteme Qiuurt at the ﬂaniteb étateﬁ
maﬁbington, E. QC.

_____________ 15 hereby designated and
appointed to serve as my

from the _____________ day of __________ 111.; ___________ _. 19 V ‘

at a salary of $______‘_’_‘____.-_”'_C1 _______________ , per annum.

.4ssociate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Approved :

Chief Justice of the United States.

August 26, l9h8
Dear Judge:
Justice Black would appreciate your signing

this authorization for his law clerk” He would
like to hcve him put on the pay roll as of

August 30tho I am enclosing a self-addressed enve.ope
for the return of the paperse /(///
v WM

ﬁupremz Qtuurt at the ﬂHniteh gtates
wazbinmun, EB. Qt.

August 25: ________________ , 19%?“”

T3131?“ HOBBS is hereby designated and

appointed to serve as my 13:01” _________________________________________________________

from the ______ 3 9.3211 day of August . 19h8

n “ y A
at a salary of $..i:zf’:i_3__t’:§ ______________ . per annum.

.4ssociate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Approved :

Fred M. Vinson
Chief Justice of the United States.

éupreme Qtnurt at the ﬂHm’teb étates
washingtun, 213. (£13.

_________ August 31

________ FRAWTWOHEUCRAPTIS hereby designated and

appointed to serve as my .___1aw glgrk

from the _______ 2 _c_1_ _________________ day of _________ S enteszzb er

at a salary of $ _______ 14515453 __________ , per annum.

[/7 V
____________________ r r;_;‘__«'__'_;_:._;"_{/_____ CV ~ ‘ ‘ ”Al-'71 ~ f7 ..
.dssociate Justice off/the Supreme Court of the United States.

Approved :

Chief Justice of the United States.

§upreme QEuurt at the @Hm'teh étates
washingtun, E. (EC.

M _______ L _______________________________________________ is hereby designated and
appointed to serve as my ___________________ ______________________________________________________________

from the ____________________________ day of __________________________________________________________________________ ., 1‘)”.

at a salary of 35--.- _____ 2.--; ________________ , per annum.

”—7 N « W' f"
"if n“ ' 7 ,9" i / , { ”I? g L

Approved :

Chief Justice of the United States.

éupreme Qtuurt at the 7131111211 ﬁtates
mashingtun, E. Qt.

..... A,___~___'_'-;_._‘.:; ______________________________________________ is hereby designated and

appointed to serve as my

from the ____________________________ day of

at a salary of $4 _____ ____________________ , per annum.

@W ////W//

.dssociate J stice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Approved :

Chief Justice of the United States.

éupreme QEuurt of the OBniteb étates
washingtun, E. Qt.

______ 111 _§§I.:___E:___BHIEEPEEHMM_______._-_____is hereby designated and

appointed to serve as my Law C1_e rk

from the ____________________________ day of ________________________

at a salary of $ 5610- 00 , per annum.

.dssociate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Approved :

Chief Justice of the United States.

$upreme QEuurt of the 7115mm] ﬁtates
washingtun, %. GE.

_________ Q_:,_§§¥R-Q§Pids__. is hereby designated and

law Cle rk

appointed to serve as my

from the ____________________________ day of _____________

at a salary of $___,_4.7__5__7__.__5_Q ____________ , per annum.

associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Approved :

Chief Justice of the United States.

évupreme QEuurt of the name: §>tates
washington, %. Qt.

.MELEQR‘Q._Q_.___Q_LELME_LANQ ______________________ is hereby designated and

appointed to serve as my _________________ _ ______ Law merk

from the ____________________________ day of ____________

at a salary of $__é_,_1_1_é_.__QQ ______________ , per annum.

(J ’//W W ______

Associate Just%of the SuprmCourt of the United States.

Approved :

Chief Justice of the United States.

§>upreme QlZuurt at the Mattel! ﬁtateﬁ
washingtun, 713. Qt.

June 9

HUEYb HHOW'ER lON, Jr.

appointed to serve as my ____________________ Lamﬂﬂlgxk.

from the ____________________________ day of

at a salary of $ 6.116. 00 , per annum.

«Issociate Jus 1 of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Approved :

ﬁiiguca} i‘i'ud i ‘1’;.11 1.1.511

Chief Justice of the United States.

gupreme Chart of the ﬁniteb étates
washingtun, %. Qt.

August I

___________ CHARLES-.A.-.REM:H__--_.-____,_______,_____-_is hereby designated and

appointed to serve as my _______________ LaYY__Cler__1i-

from the _______ lst day of ___________________________ August

at a salary of $_(?.1,1_§.-._9_9 _________________ , per annum.

, , .7 ’
_____________ / 7/14 (7 /’< $436,;

associate Justicg/d/é the Supreme Court of the Urﬁted States.

Approved :

) "3

Chief Justice of the United States.

Approved :

éupreme Qtuutt of the 713mm §>tates
weebingtun, E. ‘21:.

August 20

DAVID J . VANN is hereby designated and

Law Clerk

Associate Justi of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Chief Justice of the United States.

NOVember 28, 1952

MEMORANDUM TO THE CONFERENCE

In view of our opinion requesting the attorney general of
Kansas to argue a case, I thought the Court would be interested
in reading United States v. Coolidge, et a1. , 1 Wheat. 415. The

Attorney General of the United States declined to argue that case

befo re this Court.

HUGO L. BLACK

aousnugmg
BM :10 SHEIBHVHQ
UBMBOEU

250M851 82,10"

June 5, 1952

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CONFERENCE

Due to the fact that one special guest could attend

the Monday steak party only at 6:30 PM, the party will be

held at that time, at my home.

HUGO L . BLACK

' J nuary 3’1, 1957 .

MEMORANDUM FOR THE CONFERENCE

In re No. 78 - Von Moltke v. Gillies

I wish to direct the attention of the Conference
to Rule 32(d) which now provides that pleas of guilty may be
withdrawn "to prevent manifest injustice." When Mrs. Von
Moltke originally filed this petition, the rules authorized a
withdrawal only where motion was made within ten days.

It is because of this latter rule that the high burden was put
on her. My belief is that this Rule 32(d) should control the
disposition of this case. Rule 54 makes it ele at that the
rules "apply to all criminal proceedings . . . in the Supreme
Court ofthe Unitewates. " My own view is that this record
shows that a manifest injustice hasheemne and that this
Court should so declare. At the very least. however, the
District Court should be required to pass on the question in
view of Rule 32(d).

HUGO L. BLACK

The Court will meet at 12: 00 neon on Monday. December 10, 1951.

L ’"at whxch We the Ghief Juttxce will. make a statement expressing the regret

~ end sorrow of the Court on the death of Mrs Bleck. A: a mark of respect
-. and in tribute to the memory of Mrs. Black the Court will transect no
business on Monday. but will edjourn until Tue 34311. December 11th. at

‘ 12:00 noon".

Members of the Court will attend the funeral} services in a body.

October 12 . 1951

MEMOWQQM TO THE CONFERENCE

, . ' ‘No. i 1951 Term. Whitehead v. Henry

A petition for extension of time to file certiorari addressed
to me in the above case raises a question of interpretation of
28 USC §2101(c) Which I desire to refer to the Conference.

Petitioner had judgment rendered against him by the Court
of Appeals of Georgia on July 13, 1951; his petition for rehearing
was denied on July 25, and his application for certiorari from the
Supreme Court of Georgia was denied on September 12. He has
asked for an extension on the theory that under §2101(c) the time
limit to file certiorari here will run from July 13 or July 25.

I am of the opinion that under the proper interpretation of
§ZlOl(c) the time limit begins to run from the September 12 date.
This seems to be supported by American Railway Express Co. v.
Levee , 263 US 19 (1923). and certainly by better practice. fthe
members of the Conference agree, I will simply deny the applica—
tion as unnecessary.

HUGO L. BLACK

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, l9h8

LYNDON B. JOHNSON, in his individual
capacity,and

V. F. STRIEGLER, County Judge of Blanco
County, Texas, and

FRANK SHELLEY, Sheriff of said County,
and C. H. STEVENSON, County Clerk of
said County, in their official capacity
as members of and constituting the
Election Board of said County and as
representatives of the Election Boards

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

of the other Counties of Texas as a class, No.
Petitioners,
~ V8.
COKE R. STEVENSON,
Respondent.

0 R D E R

This cause came on to be heard before me on the
Petitioners' motion for a stay of a temporary injunction
issued by the united States Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Fort Worth Division, and for a stay of other pro~
ceedings in the said District Court, and after hearing argu«
ment bylcounsel for the Petitioners and Respondent, it is

ORDERED, that the temporary injunction issued by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Fort Worth Division, on September 23rd, 19h8, in.the
case entitled Coke R. Stevenson v. gyndon B. Johnson, et al.,
Civil No. l6h0, be and the same hereby is stayed, and that
the said temporary injunction is and shall be of no force
and effect, until further order of the Supreme Court.

(SIGNED) HUGO L. BQACK
Associate Justice of the
September 29, 19h8. Supreme Court of the United States.

Approved as to form:

(SIGNED) ALVIN J. WIRTZ
Counsel for Petitioners

(SIGNED) Dggimoonx
Counsel for Respondent

'- ~>-——~—a<-1u..w-n§9‘

M_e__.__I -I .7“ a... m. r , -u1..~_,.. A“ 1.‘ H _ ”4 <<__

June 4 , 1952
GSVIBOBH
Vﬁ Chief Justice 0:1!qu59 g 1: ml,

Mr. Justice Reed

Mr. Justice Frankfurter 2;: g‘ 4;”- aRBBMAHU
lVfr. Justice Douglas BUHZUL'JBIHD
Mr. Justice Jackson

th‘. Justice Burton

Mr. Justice Clark

Mr. Justice Minton

Dear Brethren:

I have a number of nice steaks and would like to deliver
one to each of you Monday at my home.

My thought had been that we could have dinner in the
evening, and I had intended to invite you to be with me by 6:30 PM
if you could. I have discovered that the wife of one of the brethren
has made a dinner engagement for that evening, and while he can come
at 6:30, he could not remain for the evening . The only other Monday
alternative would be somewhere around 1:30 or 2:30 in the afternoon,
depending on when we get out of court.

In order to arrange the time, would you please indicate

below which hour you would prefer.

1:30 PM 6:30 PM Either time Neither time

———.—.— _ ———

i/ﬁ‘

JMG 13 9 1953

MEMORANDUM FQR THE CONFERENCE
III re Invitetioa to the Attcxrney General to ergue the
ﬁﬂeﬂon Cases

In View at the political use: thet ere being
made of our permieeion to the Attorney General. ta argue
the recent reciel discrimination case: in the Bietriet of
Columbie, I think we should amend our order in the
segregation cues and eliminate the par-grep): which invites
the Attorney General to erm. I do not think that this {30m
should permit itself t0 become involved in current politicel
cantmvereiee. and I know of no we? ta prevent it in respect
to the subject except to ch Yugo our order. Consequently.
if this matter comes, up before the aonfetence. I vote to

amend the order in thie way.

HUGO 1... BLACK