xt7msb3wtd0h_15 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/mets.xml https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2.dao.xml unknown 166 Cubic Feet 381 document boxes, seven textile items, three map folders, one artwork archival material 72m2 English University of Kentucky The physical rights to the materials in this collection are held by the University of Kentucky Special Collections Research Center. Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Frederick Moore Vinson papers Economic stabilization. Elections -- United States -- Congresses. Judges -- Correspondence. Judges -- United States. Judicial opinions Judicial process -- United States Legislators -- Correspondence. New Deal, 1933-1939. World War, 1914-1918 -- Veterans. World War, 1939-1945. Chief Justice - correspondence, etc. on cases text Chief Justice - correspondence, etc. on cases 2019 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7msb3wtd0h/data/72m2/Box_163/Folder_2/Multipage1850.pdf 1951-1953 1953 1951-1953 section false xt7msb3wtd0h_15 xt7msb3wtd0h T J————_—\
Cmss 01" Sr ; was 1 T 1201 SYMBOLS
“’ T
This ir. a fu‘I—ratc
TLTL‘ETHUD or C. INC A
21mm Link.

”,9 its dc—
{vrrcd chnmcrt'ri in

DL = Day Lcucv
NL=Night Leucr
(Jleltl‘d by :1 mitnblc‘l\1.\\
symbol above Hf prc- \\
ceding: [LC addrcss.

LC = Deferrzd Cablc

NLT=Cable Night Leuu
W. P. MARSHALL. PRESIDENT

1 Ship Radioman r
I'm.- Mmg Lune Lhuuu 1n th dam 11:12 on calm: rum: and day latch—TE brANbAI{L’1TMb at point of origin. Time of recexpt ls ETANDAhD TIME at paint; of destmancu
H; ()1 'T w 1-
, AC“u) PU—LD

TEW(ORK NY 14 (HA:
ELHORE CROPLEY: CLERK SUPREEE
STATES=L U3 SUPREME COHRT BLDG:

How CHARLES COURT OF THE UNITED
WHFEBiZ pM;g
UTTOTT LETTER OF
IN THE LABOR CA3 E8
F APlHW TTT FOR

UARY 13 TO TTE

CHIEF JUSTICE
ET FOR ARGU

FEBRUARY 26 AS
THE FOUR CASESo I EARHESTLY URGE

W OF THE DEPART HIT OF JUSTICE TO CHANGE THE
CTALLY DE REFU 3E9 E 3:. ‘

EJJR
a
Q

TUTTLE LhdHREL

OzﬂcE OF THE CLERK
SUPREME COU T,RT U S-

" -"A.~.GM:I‘A‘-l ~31 gnu,»

vx!‘ \\;y \\ 11.1. A! I'HLA l‘H‘ 'l'l't 1 THURS I‘I‘unl l'l's 1'A'1‘1UJNS('0.\I } ::\‘1_\'G l'l’S SERVICE

' ' , ;- r———+++ex
* . I220 - SYMBOLS *
CLASS OF SERVICE 3 . , ..
I ' DL=Day Lem: ‘ ‘-

This is a fuII’razc

‘ Telegram or Cablc' - ' NL=Night Lettér- ,
gramd ugless Its. Cit , ( O 8 ) 1.“ W
5f" c aracter_ISIn— _ LT=Inr'I LcrIerTgIegmm
dIcated by a suxtabIc ' ———-.———-——-——'—~
symbol above or we I . VLT=InI’1VictoTW LIL '

ccdmgthe address. W. p. MARSHALL. FRESIDENT

:IiFleIegtamS and day letters is STANDARD TIME at point of origin. Time of receipt; is STANDARD TIME at point of destinatioux; r_.

The ﬁling time shown in the dau ‘.

W3026 LONG DL PD=PM LOS ANGELES CALIF 11 1050A:
.HON FRED M VINSON CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES : _, f
=US SUPREME COURT BLDG I FIRST ST NORTHEAST WASHDC;;§

IN AN ORIGINAL ACTION BROUGHT IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE T7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF;
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA. AGAINST THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES,"
THE STATE COURT ORDERED THE ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OF
"MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE CITY TO COMPLY WITH ITS CONTRACTUAL;
AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS TO COOPERATE WITH THE AUTHORITY IN, I
THE DEVEOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF VARIOUS EXTENSIVE
HOUSING PROJECTS IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES. THERE IS A'

POSSIBILITY THAT THE CITY EITHER IN CONNECTION WITH A
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI OR INDEPENDENTLY THEREOF MAY
APPLY EX PARTE TO YOU FOR AN ORDER STAYING THE ISSUANCE 5

OF THE WRIT OF MANDAMUSS IF SUCH AN APPLICATION SHOULD
BE MADE THE UNDERSIGNED. AS ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE ‘V

HOUSING AUTHORITY. WOULD APPRECIATE BEING PROMPTLY
ADVISED SO THAT DATA AND ARGUMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THAT
REQUEST MAY BE PRESENTED; WE ARE PREPARED TO ACT PROMPTLY

UPON ANY SUCH NOTIFCATION=
HERMAN F SELVIN 525 WEST SIXTH ST LOS
ANGELES 14 CALIFORNIA= -

'I'III” ('(I‘III'INY \\'I[.II .\I‘I’ILI~3(‘I\‘I‘E SI'UUED'I'IHKS !-'I‘.U,\I T'I'.‘~ PATRON; COVF‘ERNIN‘G ITS SERVICE

February 24, 1951,
MEMORANDUM FOR THE CONFERENCE

We probany agree that the order of arguments we had in the Wisconsgf
cases before recess was not the most helpful. We ought to avoid such un- H
helpful arguments in the _I_.._a_b_9;_ cases for next week. To that end, I asked ‘
my law clerk Hugh Calkins to prepare a memorandum for me as to the specific

issues in each of the cases.

I hereby circulate the Calkins memo and suggest that the Clerk be
directed to advise counsel that the cases will be heard in the order indi-
cated in this memo.

F. F.

130C)”

{'3\

QBtfite of the éulititcr ﬁeneral
Washington, %. Qt.

February

The honorable Fred -.‘U1nson
' ' Justice of tne Tniteo states
q

Supreme Court of tue Tnitew btat'ee
*igton 13, h. C.

— Local 74, V *v7 Erothcrhood of
Curpent ere 1 ﬂ Jo inere of America,

A, b. a
'wtcrn‘F1onalnro
.Olkcl‘s, Local ’3 1-. 5130. V. ‘-

1-0 v0 l‘cjhoHtgc
“ernooo of ”lee

CJI'. a1 .
1 ”Liluing and Construc-
tion Trades Council, et a1.

iticc;

ﬁlo abovsecayticmcp cases, each oi hliCh Les been ylaced
on the summer docket and W111. be argued on or about bebruary
as, 1951, involve imjorLa nt cues Lions of construction and appli—
cation 01 various orovisions oi the MaLional L.abor RelaLions
Act, particularly Section 8 (b) (A) (A). The order in nnich
the cases uaVB been set down for oral ﬁrr‘icri 1 ollows L1.e cock-
ct rumour chronology', and mc use 1e beL1eve that argxment of
the 1011 cases in such 1or'a1L0t orcer Nil] tend to coniuse
rather than clarify tuc nature and interrelationship oi the
issue: presentec, tee ’bvertwent re Spectiully requests that the
order of a‘uunent be re arran‘ow so as to reflect the logical
interrelation of the cases, and Lia L the time allotted for argu—
1nent in the giggﬁ,;j f,¢,case, n0. 313, be increased to one hour
each side, because taat case presents the Livotal is sue uoon
.ich t * otﬁu “u r. ““;J ; ‘Ue are ccmpclleo to make this
request “1 *1e ‘ -" ‘, .-; 2? have attempted, without success,

to obtain a unanimous agreement among tte numerous 001ns el in—
volved in all these cases as to the appropriate oruer in wnich

they (howl; be heard.

Tiie tncc,noJc ones t1 ion in each 0: the £0 01 cases is the
valjtitj oi‘ *H~ 31- Enction drawn 0; the Board, in a_oplying the
“secondary",;- 32* Drovision of the Act,o betreen primary and

seconiarv labor 7?. ‘71:~‘e , tnie oi
bet Ex r; the ,1 ‘r; .' ; 30. 313, tue 2 V ._1 case. In
the otner t} so an:_ ‘1 the oa1ties, on *1 ‘i 7» rely upon
or r:su;~ ‘f; valicity. Inoeeo in the latter case Lile unions
are Cont; if " that tne area oi n~r_is<1b1e primary action is
broaoer bﬁﬂg tnat recotmized o; tne uoaro. If tne oisti 11ction
drawn 1“ 'u~ anr“ shoul_d be lDlelQ‘tﬂb by tnis Court in NO. 313,
would be to 1:nock out tee basic premise on which the
, a on cuts ”11 4 “ “1h other three ca.ses are being made.
Nance: To oelievc that, in the interests 01 orde"ly and logical
Drusen LJOH: mo. )1} should oe tne 1irst case calJ_eO_ and that
opportnnvty sn/Ulf ow afforse: CQLDSB‘ in ” V case to point
mjt tnc w11ious a;pects of tne pr; ivy—seJoncary arcblem‘wuich
are piioyc tn; : Lit ‘2‘o 3 turning to tnc narrower dependent
c:uvt;on: cw suntan o; tne other three cases. 5e believe that
onu~half notr nor side now alloted to no. BlB‘WilJ not suffice
enable (KVTL’ : to make a clear oresentation of :he oasic problem.

_i major crestion presented by tnese cases is
Roarcls ay11 ca iion oi the primary—secondary
I~wro1~ct ca‘ es Jnvolvitr the construction
is conxon to all thrge of the ranaining
lo. 85 ano No. 108, present: in acuition,
e commerce, free Speech, and substantial
evjrcncc. “‘L w ash: dhOulC appropriately follow we. bl} oecau_se
too J‘nr»'c1nc ‘5 ”‘o particular fact11al oifierences UDOn tnich
~~usi:1j cow'sti in EHLSG 0'"W rely will stand out more clearly
‘ ‘ issue: 1; w “ : correctness of tie 30 aro’s apoli—
' ' old have oeen illuminaime: b; tne pre—

21w » - A m— ta- »u.,‘..W-yc~-Mh«an~ac

HP CEIVED

( FEB 14 (‘95;

E OFFICE OF THE CLERK

February 13, l9i518UPREM£ COURT, U. S. V
5W\

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

Re: No. 85 - Local 7h, United Brotherhood of

Carpenters and Joiners of America,
A. F. of L., et al. v. N.L.R.B.

No.108 - International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, Local 501, etc. v. N.L.R.B.

No. 313- N.L.R.B. v. International Rice Milling
Company, Inc., et al.

No. 393- N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Con-
struction Trades Council, et a1.

Dear Mr. Chief Justice:

As Counsel for petitioners and respondents respectively,
in Nos. 108 and 393 we became aware today of the Solicitor
Generalfs letter to you of February 9 last. we believe that we
should advise you of the position we have taken in the discus-
sions with the Board of the matter of the order of oral argument.
The undersigned are of the unanimous View that a more logical
order of presentation than the order proposed by the Board would
be as follows:

No. 85 - Local 74, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, Al F. of L. et al v.
NILOROB.

No. 393 N.L.R.B. v. Denver Building and Construction
Trades Council, et al

No. 313 N.L.R.B. v. International Rice Milling Company,
Inc. et al

No. 108 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
Local 501, etc. v. N.L.R.B.

In suggesting this order, we are taking into account the
procedure of the Board in discussing common issues for all cases
in its briefs on particular cases. As we understand the Board
proposes to discuss the issue of commerce in No. 85 (Local 7h,
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America)? the
issue of statutory application of Section 8 (b) (h) (A) in N00
393 (Denver Building and Construction Trades Council) and No.

313 (International Rice Milling Company) and the free speech issue
in Mo. 108 (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local
501 . ,

Accordingly, it is our view that within the scope of all
of the issues in these cases it would be more appropriate to dis-
cuss the questions as far as each issue is concerned in the
following order:

Jurisdiction or the question of the scope of the
commerce clause in the Act.

The statutory application of Section 8 (b) (4) (A) and

The question of whether the constitutional protection
of free speech or the statutory protection of free
speech (Section 8 (c)) immunizes the conduct in
certain of these cases.

Under this proposed order of argument there remains only
the question of the respective positions of Nos. 313 and 393 in
the oral argument. It is our view that the proper order of
issues under Section 8 (b) (4) (A) should be as follows:

1. The scope of a primary labor dispute. (No. 393)

2. If there are secondary results, are they allowable?
(No. 313) ’

We are of the View that the proposed listing of cases in
the first paragraph of this letter would provide a more logical
form of consideration of the issues than acceptance of the Board's
final legal conclusions which call for the consideration of the
International Rice Milling case before all the other cases.

If the order of argument which we have proposed is not
considered acceptable in the light of the refusal of the Board
to agree to it, we, of course, would be entirely agreeable to
following the docket order of the cases.

With respect to the Board's application for additional
time in the International Rice Milling case, we do not think this
case merits any such special treatment.

. . a Respectfully yours,
(Oi/£59m % XA‘7‘Z'44J, 2.14,.

William J. Hughes, Jr. (Counsel for Denver Building and Con-
struction Trades Council in No. 393)
ﬁﬂckmg:;; f..7’AQ-w¢irim4~,

Martin F. O’Donoghue (Counsel for United Association of Jour-
neymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing
and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United

}é; . f/ " States and Canada, Local No. 3)

(’40 IV”V$/hﬂ¢l’\
Louis Sherman (Counsel for I.B.E.W. Local 501 in No. 108 and
Counsel for I.B.E.W. Local 68 in No. 393)

CC: Solicitor General
General Counsel of the N.L.R.B.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS C:
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

JOSEPH W. STEWART WASHINGTON 1’ D' C'

CLERK

April 4, 1951

No. 10,805— Allen v. United States =' gj. P}? ”F?”

Honorable Fred M. Vinson,
Circuit Justice for the District

of Columbia Circuit,
Washington, D. C.

My dear Mr. Chief Justice:
)Papers returned
I send you herewith a copy of a petition filed ”9 Stewart 4/5651
February 14, 1951, by appellant in the above entitled)W1th {10?3’510“ In
case, alleging that the judges of this court are dis- my typlmon the
qualified therein because of bias and prejudice and )petltion should
requesting you to appoint judges from other circuits )be denied as
to act in the case. Hacking power.
)/sgd/ Fred M V'
I also enclose a COpy of appellant's affidavit of) CiT‘CUit Justice
bias and prejudice filed February 2, 1951, and a copy) April 5: 1951'
of.‘ a memorandum of the court filed in the case on Apri
3, 1951, in which all the judges of the court declined
to disqualify themselves therein.

For your convenience I also send you a copy of a
memorandum prepared by the motions clerk with respect
to the above matters.

Respectful?r yours ,

,1 /' I V
‘ ' ,’ i I .1
/
/“

Clerk.

{,x‘”
Fire Memorandum:—

.—___......_....__.....‘.._.__..-.‘_

The original of this order signed and returned
to the Clerk of the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia -

4/5/51.-

4/18/51

Sheridan Downey, the former Senator from Calif. ,
would like an appointment with the Chief Justice
sometime this week for the purpose of discussing

the possibility of the city of Long Beach, California,

joining the Tidelands Case as amicus curiae.

\\
Phoned Senator lianey to effect that in matters

of this kind, which would eventually come before
the Court for determination, the C. J feels he
should not discuss them beforehand with interested
individuals.

‘V T

4 0/1 W “:5” IRUBICAM,

I4d1.¥’8/)"‘ZIZLYZ7?€

NEW YORK ~ CHICAGO ~ DETROIT ' SAN FRANCISCO ~ HOLLYWOOD - MONTREAL ~ TORONTO ‘ MEXICO CITY - LONDON

DAVID LE V Y
. . . IV'EW YORK 17 ‘ 2'75Jlarjis-0/z :l/‘rc/Iug
MC? Presu/enl ll! C/Iﬂl‘yf‘ Of

[eat/1'0 */e[(*v1‘$l‘on 751/1111! AIDril 16, 1951

anal A’Vew I’royramthy

Chief Justice Fred Vinson
Supreme Court

‘Washington

D. C.

Dear ur. Chief Justice:

You may recall that at the time that you took office as Sec—
retary of the Treasury, I had the privilege of serving you as Chief of the
Radio Section of the then War Finance Division of the Treasury Department.
Perhaps you recall that I was on special assignment to the Treasury from
the Navy Department, where I was a Lieutenant. From time to time, I visited
in your office with Ted Gamble and assisted you in radio broadcasts in
behalf of the Treasury Bond operation.

As you can see from this letterhead, I have returned to pri-
vate business to the same company with which I had been associated prior
to service. As such, I naturally have a great interest in television.

I know that there have been many overtures made to you in
connection with televising a decision day of the Supreme Court. And I am
familiar with the many obstacles that such a venture would have to overcome.
Moreover, I would recognize that the televising of many Supreme Court deci-
sions might not be as interesting to the public as one in particular and
that is the decision to be handed down involving the dispute between the
F. C. C. and the television industry, relative to color.

Obviously, millions of television set owners have a vital
stake in the decision and will be very much interested in the outcome of
the case. Added to this interest would be the special interest of viewing
one of the great instruments of the American system in action, namely the
Supreme Court. I believe that television viewers, having the opportunity
to "sit in" and watch the members of the court and to observe the solem-
nity and dignity of its operations in connection with a decision which
involves them realistically, would take away a greater appreciation of the
court and its functions.

Chief Justice Fred Vinson -~ 2
April 16, 1951

I would be happy to meet with you or a representative whom
you would care to designate in Washington to discuss this matter, if there
are grounds for discussion, to determine whether or not there is a justi-
fication for this oarticular telecast, which, while it would be unique,
need not of itself set a precedent, but rather could be viewed as of a
special nature because of the inherent relationship between the subject
matter and the television viewers.

My kindest personal regards,

Sincerely,
ﬂ

“Mn N ‘ ;

David Levy

gupreme (Smurf nf ﬂip ﬂuffy?! £9th

n .L L m 111.
, ULDUUDI .L U! "Ix, 1:7

PAUL BLOBiL,

PKTIL, OTTO OHLEVDORW,

‘7‘ "r ,2 .7 '1', ': .7 .‘ (1.“: :171
DUJ"; . A -‘ . .9114. J! 57.11-411’

31:01? N I" '1‘ ' -‘“ 5.7.7.13 Ii" IBCEZIIDT,

Nov nts,

ow oﬁww

amplication f 1 stay of

exec ovtions

vo‘."Aﬂ are

_. ‘..-\2

the notiti .:' -"“ p tisrari b7 those movaan
Acheson, o” _. T; :; Jotobe? Terﬂ,
f0? rehearing
ustice: consider that
ion is denied.
Tho "round "1 w»: c g Justice Flack denies

H51 3 v} / p-vional

Court.
Ins ico c..‘r; took wo oa1t
of this annlioation.

Dated this 6th (Ear of June, 1951.

A true copy:
TEST:
CHARLTS 71"0‘ "107:0? 7‘3, Clark:
Supvome Cou1t 0: :hi nib? d Stﬁtcs
BY

Deputy.

éuptsme mutt of the ﬁnite?) ﬁﬁateﬁ

OCTOBER TERM, 19

T arm No _________________________

(b.

9‘
“ﬁve

Toggle Chief Justice
Mr. Justice Black
Mr. Justice Reed
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
Mr. Justice Douglas
Mr. Justice Jackson
Mr. Justice Burton
Mr. Justice Clark

SUPREME COURT or THE UNITED STATES ——————————————————————

'From: Minion, J.
Nos. 80. 81 AND S;.—OCi‘<‘>ei:t-: TERM. 1951.1 . NOV 1 4 l95
Circulate-dr’
Edward J. Keenan. Petitioner, Recirculated:
80 e.
(,7. J. Burke. \‘farden. New
I‘lastern State. Penitentiary.

Walter Jankowski. Petitioner. ()1, \l'rits of (fermmyi
81 t‘. to the Supreme Court
(7‘. J. iuykg‘ Warden. New of the (‘ommonwealt-h
Eastern State Penitentiary. ()f1)91111513’l"‘111i3-

()rville Foulke. Petitioner.
8‘2 '1'.
(7. J. Burke. lllzu‘den. New
Eastern State Penitentiary.

[November —. 19.317;

Mn. .It‘s'riei; MiN'roN. dissenting.

These ‘ases only illuminate the error of this Court
in Townsend v. Bur/re. 33—1 1'. S. 730. I would not com—
pound the error. I would overrule Townsend rather than
send these petitioners baek to be proeeeded against
nieelv. Their e'uilt is not questioned. They say. “If we
had only had a lawyer. maybe we would not have received
such lonej sentenees." Yet. the senteneing judge gave
two of the petitioners much shorter terms than the maxi-
mum provided by statute. They eomplain not so much
of the senteuees they reeeived but the manner in which
they reeeived them.

Admit the sentencing; judge was facetious. even that he
bulldozed the petitionerswhe sentenced them all within
the limits authorized by law. Maybe the judges con-

80. 81 8: S2—DISSENT.

2 KEENAN v. BURKE.

duct called for a curtain lecture. At most, that was a.
matter for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and that
court did not even see an error of state law in the judge‘s
conduct, let alone a federal constitutional question. We
sit only to determine federal constitutional questions, not
to scold state trial judges. It is utterly incomprehensible
to me how a judge can commit a denial of federal due
process by being facetious in the sentencing of defendants
where the sentences he imposes are within the limits pre-
scribed by statute. I would afﬁrm.

No. 80. Edward J. Keenan, petitioner, V. C. J. Burke, Warden,
New Eastern State Penitentiary;

No. 81. Walter Jankowski, petitioner, V. Cornelius J. Burke,
Warden, New Eastern State Penitentiary, etc. ; and

No. 82. Orville Foulke, petitioner, v. C. J. Burke, Warden,
New Eastern State Penitentiary, etc.; On petitions for writs of certiorari

to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Per Curiam: The judgments are reversed,

Townsend v. Burke, 334 U. S. 736. Memorandum by Mr. Justice Minton

dissenting.

5 Concord Avenue, Larchmont, N. Y.
November 25, 1951

The Honorable Fred M. Vinson,
Chief Justice, United States Supreme Court

my dear Mr. Chief Justice:

Your attention is called to two gross misstate-
ments of fact in the brief submitted in Case No. 546 by
the State of New York and the Public Service Commission
of New York. These misstatements give an entirely false
picture of the facts in this case, and are so fundamental
that the Court might easily be misled into reaching a
wrong decision on the strength of these two errors alone:

1. On page 5, line 4, the brief states: "although
intrastate commutation rates are lower than interstate".
The entire case of the commuter is unhinged by this
grievous misstatement, for exactly the reverse is the
truth. The 17,000 intrastate commuters to New York City
(from points in Westchester County) now pay, and always
have paid, higher rates per mile (from 24 % to 94 % higher)
than the 7,000 interstate commuters from Connecticut to
New York City. Before the recent Federal Court ruling,
the intrastate rates (averaging all stations) were 21 to
24 % higher; now they are 51 to 52 % higher. This can be
easily verified by checking the tariffs of the New Haven
on file with the ICC.

2. On page 4, line 11, the brief states: "it is
conceded that the raierad is operated at a substantial
deficit." This is grossly untrue, and creates the totally
false impression that the New York commuters want favors
from a railroad operating in the red. The New Haven” 8 NET
railway operating income last year, as reported to the ICC,
was $12, 508, 296; in 1949 it was $8, 548, 998; in 1948 it was
$10, 902, 556. And after paying all fixed and contingent
charges during these three years, —the total NET PROFIT of
the New Haven amounted to $16, 041, 785.

We consider it our right and our duty to correct
these serious errors of fact, as they would undermine our
entire case if given credence,-—and it is we, the commuters,
who will be most vitally affected by an adverse decision.

Respectfully submitted,

THE WEST-CHESTER CO/MEUTERS' GROUP,
xn- 1* ”«w~“
1" L» {hm-"J1-

Herbert Askwith, Chairman

By ' V." vwvémjl

5 Concord Avenue, Larchmont, N. Y.
November 25, 1951

The Honorable William 0. Douglas,
Supreme Court of the United States

kw dear Mr. Justice:

Your attention is called to two gross
misstatements of fact in the brief submitted in Case No.
346 by the State of New York and the Public Service Com-
mission of New York. These misstatements give an entirely
false picture of the facts in this case, and are so funda-
mental that the Court might easily be misled into reaching
a wrong decision on the strength of these two errors:

1. On page 5, line 4, the brief states: "although
intrastate commutation rates are lower than interstate."
The entire case of the commuter is unhinged by this grievous
misstatement, for exactly the reverse is the truth. The
17,000 intrastate commuters to New York City (from points in
ﬁestchester County) now pay, and always have paid, higher
rates per mile (from 24% to 94% higher) than the 7,000 inter~
state commuters from Connecticut to New York City. Before the
recent Federal Court ruling, intrastate rates were 21 to 24 %
higher; now they are 51 to 52 ﬂ higher, averaging all stations.

2. On page 4, line ll, the brief states: "it is
conceded that the railroad is operated at a substantial deficit."
This is grossly untrue, and creates the totally false impression
that the New York commuters want favors from a railroad Opera-
ting in the red. The Newﬂﬁavenfs NET railway operating income

"last year (reported t091307—was ; , ; in 1949 it was
$7,528,998; in 1948, $10,902,55 . And after paying all fixed
and contingent charges during these three years, the total NET

racgrr of the New Haven amounted to $16,041,785.

We consider it our right and duty to correct
these errors of fact, as they would undermine the entire case
if given credence, and it is we, the commuters, who will be
most vitally affected by an adverse decision.

Respectfully submitted,

THE WE7E HESTER COMMUTERS' GROUP,

Herbert A kwith, Chairman

431??

n “t
.1

BARNESJMCKAM.PANTZER8¢BOYD

EARL BVBARNES |3I3 MEPCHANTS BANK BUILDING

HUBERT HICKAM INDIANAPOLIS 4, INDIANA
KURT F, PANTZER
ALAN w. BOYD
CHARLES M-WELLS CABLE ADORESS'LExOFOLIS"
.JOHN H.6FOVES

THOMAS M.SCANLON

FREDERIC D, ANDERSON

LESTERIRONS

JERRY 9. BELKNAF

ROBERT S. ASHBY 0111.16

LOUIS A HIGHMARK

\JOHN w HOUGHTON

GEORGE a, zAzAs

ALAN o. BOYD

TELEF‘HONE ATLANnc I3I3 LESTER M PONDEP

TAX COUNSEL

. Vi 11 :3 c- ‘n ,
3: u o r- e m 6:

J
r, _ .1 (V.
*4 Of. O —

03 SC

BARNES, HICKAM, PANTZER 8:. BOYD

EARL E5. BARNES
HUBERT HICKAM
KURT F‘. RANTZER
ALAN W. BOYD
CHARLES M . WELLS

|3|3 MERCHANTS BANK BUILDING
INDIANAPOLIS 4, INDIANA
TELEPHONE ATLANTIC I313 LESTER M1 PONDER

CABLE ADDREss'LExoeous" TAX COUNSEL

JOHN H. GROVES
THOMAS M.SCANLON
FREDERIC D ANDERSON
LESTER IRONS

JERRY P1 BELKNAP
ROBERT S ASHBY
LOUIS A. HIGHMARK
\JOHN W. HOUGHTON
GEORGE d ZAZAS
ALAN C BOYD
RAYMOND W. GRAY, JR.

m ,— r1
:1 TA ‘7‘“

-__‘

OF NEW JERSE ,
Complainant,
VS, a
STATE OF ITLJ YORK,
CITY OF 1'11”! YORK,
Defendant:

Th :Ioru3r9&:|le
C1ief Justice of

Cou.rt of
‘J 1 a .1; 7 nggton

Fred M. Vinson,
the Supreme
the United States,
#9 D

.-. 5) , a

dear Chief JIM}

I write to thank
uh.ich you took the

j the techniques and
the a eve-entitled mat?
3reat deal 01
Hinton had to a.nd I ac
deal more on FP:LdaJ in iJhe
the trial than would otherwis e

I“.
(If

.’I
i
.L

J€(.~ 0

:313r;

I was intere

entitled

wattleulaeid

u
inspiration from

endlnle aceompl
seconi organization meeting of

Procedure_ in Anti~trur t and Other Protracte

IECBVED

conference last Thursday,
mte1 to mv comment. respect~

re to be adopted in the trial
Needless to say, I took
what grou and Mr Justice
shed a great

(J.

have been the case.

sted in reading the pamphlet

d. Ca Beg.

Thin was produced at the heari
the.ﬁmnnm
presentation

I enclooe a

to counsel at the
copy of the Agenda
for yourself how much the
to make the points in
have a reeo to work
which the timony of all the
Thit will make it ‘0”“11
numbers, to index the evi

CC 0
163,
JO n CG

I had prepared on leaving

poin
Izhe I6 U<3n