Supreme Court cases (principal) on racial discrimination in housing, voting, Taylor, William L., legislative representative, Americans for Democratic Tiffany, Gordon McLean, staff director, Commission on Civil Rights.. U. S. v. Board of Registrars of Macon County, Ala. Complaint.. Pagr 705 307 234 832 165 1035 174 161 LETTERS Bennett, Glenn D., detective, Arson Bureau, to Senator Hart. 700 424 Case, Clifford P., U.S. Senator, to Senator Olin D. Johnston 502 691 Finn, Gerald H., personnel director, Treasury Department, to all national employees 982 France, Royal B., executive secretary, National Lawyer's Guild, to 750 Goldblatt, Louis, secretary-treasurer, International Longshoremen's and Hennings, Thomas C., Jr., U.S. Senator, to Mrs. Robert E. Osth.... 19, 20 Kiley, Robert, president, U.S. National Student Association, to Senator Leskes, Theodore, American Jewish Committee, to Senator Hennings. Masaoka, Mike M., representative, Japanese-American Citizens League, to Mr. Slayman__ Maslow, Will, to Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. Masaoka, Mike M., representative, Japanese-American Citizens League, to Senator Hennings.. 491 Peterson, Esther, legislative representative, industrial union department, 350 Putnam, Carleton, to William P. Rogers, Attorney General... 946-950 Sifton, Paul, legislative representative, United Automobile, Aircraft, and 694 421 Tiffany, Gordon M., staff director, Commission on Civil Rights, to Senator Weitzer, Bernard, national legislative director, Jewish Wars Veterans, to Senator Hennings.. TELEGRAMS Campbell, Boyd, businessman from Mississippi, to Christian Science APPENDIX Exhibit A: Status of school segregation-desegregation in the southern and border States, published by Southern Education Reporting Service (submitted by Senator Douglas). Exhibit B: Cooper v. Aaron, opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, September 29, 1958 (submitted by Senator Douglas). 239 751 1447 1479 Exhibit C: Text of 49 Federal statutes provisions in which the United "Assault Upon Freedom of Association," a study of the southern attack on 1. "Catholic Bishops Speak on Racial Discrimination and the Moral 3. "Methodist Resolution on Integration," by the Council of Methodist Bishops; "The Methodist Social Creed," adopted by the general conference, 1956; "A Message on Vital Issues," board of social and economic relations of the Methodist Church____ 4. "A Message on Race Relationships," adopted by board of social and economic relation of Methodist Church, January 14, 1955, prompted by recent decision of the Supreme Court. 5. "The Bible Speaks on Race,” board of social economic relations of the Methodist Church, adopted September 26, 1957 Page 1496 1520 1524 1573 1527 2743 2747 2749 2750 2751 6. "Just, Right, and Necessary, a study of reactions to the Supreme Court decision on segregation with a statement of guiding principles, policies, and practical suggestions, the National Council, Episcopal Church, 281 Fourth Avenue, New York 10, N.Y... 7. "The Convention and Triennial Daily," resolution on race is voted by bishops, October 11, 1958, volume 1, No. 6, page 2 (news story).. 8. The Lambeth Conference, 1958, the encyclical letter from the bishops together with the resolutions and reports, Seabury Press, 1958, pages 1-55 and 1-56-- In re: George C. Wallace, brief for respondents. Court cases_ Selected bibliography - 2754 2783 2784 2786 1632 1604 APPENDIX-Continued EX PARTE WALL. (107 U.S. 265 (1882)) A rule was made by the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Florida, which, after reciting that it had come to the knowledge of the court that W., an attorney of the court, did, on a day specified, engage in and with an unlawful, tumultuous, and riotous gathering, he advising and encouraging thereto, take from the jail of Hillsborough County, and hang by the neck until he was dead, one John, otherwise unknown, thereby showing such an utter disregard and contempt for the law which, as a sworn attorney, he was bound to support, as shows him to be totally unfitted to occupy such position thereupon cited him to appear at a certain time and show cause why his name should not be stricken from the roll. The attorney appeared, and answered, denying the charge in mass, and excepting to the jurisdiction of the court, (1) because there was no charge against him under oath, (2) because the offence charged was a crime by the laws of Florida for which he was liable to be indicted and convicted. The court overruled the exceptions, and called a witness who proved the charge, showing that the hanging took place before the court-house door, during a temporary recess of the court; thereupon the court made an order striking W.'s name from the roll. On motion made here for a mandamus to compel the judge of that court to reverse this order, and he having answered the rule, showing the special cir cumstances of the case,-Held, 1. That although not strictly regular to grant a rule to show cause why an attorney should not be struck off the roll, without an affidavit making charges against him, yet that, under the special circumstances of this case, the want of such affidavit did not render the proceeding void as coram non judice. 2. That the acts charged against the attorney constituted sufficient ground for striking his name from the roll. 3. That although, in ordinary cases, where an attorney commits an indictable offence, not in his character of attorney, and does not admit the charge, the courts will not strike his name from the roll until he has been regularly indicted and convicted, yet that the rule is not an inflexible one; that there may be cases in which it is proper for the court to proceed without such previous conviction; and that the present case, in view of its special circumstances, the evasive denial of the charge, the clearness of the proof, and the failure to offer any counter proof, was one in which the court might lawfully exercise its summary powers. 4. That the proceeding to strike an attorney from the roll is one within the proper jurisdiction of the court of which he is an attorney, and does not violate the constitutional provision which requires an indictment and trial by jury in criminal cases; that it is not a criminal proceeding, and not intended for punishment, but to protect the court from the official ministration of persons unfit to practise as attorneys therein. 5. That such a proceeding is not an invasion of the constitutional provision that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; but that the proceeding itself, when instituted in proper cases, is due process of law. 6. That, as the court below did not exceed its powers in taking cognizance of the case, no such irregularity occurred in the proceeding as to require this court to interpose by the writ of mandamus. |