EDMUND D. CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE

Oral History ProjectThe Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit

Oral History Project United States CourtsThe Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit District of Columbia Circuit

Edmund D. Campbell, Esquire

Interviews conducted by:William F. Causey, Esquire

October 7 and November 11, 1994

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Oral History AgreementsEdmund D. Campbell, Esq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiWilliam F. Causey, Esq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Biographical SketchesEdmund D. Campbell, Esq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viWilliam F. Causey, Esq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

Oral History Transcript of Interviews on October 7 and November 11, 1994 . . . . . . . . . 1

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A1

NOTE

The following pages record interviews conducted on the dates indicated. The interviewswere electronically recorded, and the transcription was subsequently reviewed and editedby the interviewee.

The contents hereof and all literary rights pertaining hereto are governed by, and aresubject to, the Oral History Agreements included herewith.

© 1998 Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit. All rights reserved.

PREFACE

The goal of the Oral History Project of the Historical Society of the District of ColumbiaCircuit is to preserve the recollections of the judges who sat on the U.S. Courts of theDistrict of Columbia Circuit, and judges’ spouses, lawyers and court staff who playedimportant roles in the history of the Circuit. The Project began in 1991. Most interviewswere conducted by volunteers who are members of the Bar of the District of Columbia.

Copies of the transcripts of these interviews, a copy of the transcript on 3.5" diskette (inWordPerfect format), and additional documents as available – some of which may havebeen prepared in conjunction with the oral history – are housed in the Judges’ Library inthe E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse, 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W.,Washington, D.C. Inquiries may be made of the Circuit Librarian as to whether thetranscript and diskette are available at other locations.

Such original audio tapes of the interviews as exist as well as the original 3.5" diskettes ofthe transcripts are in the custody of the Circuit Executive of the U. S. Courts for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit.

i

1

ED CAMPBELL ORAL HISTORY PROJECT

At The Offices of Jackson & Campbell, P.C.Washington, D.C.

Friday, October 7, 1994

Mr. Causey: Good morning, Ed. We are glad to have youwith us this morning. This is Friday, October7, 1994. My name is Bill Causey. I'm herewith Jim Schaller and Maria Perugini at theOffices of Jackson & Campbell, P.C. inWashington, D.C., and we are going to betaking the oral history of Edmund D. Campbellfor the Historical Society for the District ofColumbia Circuit. Ed, good morning.

Mr. Campbell: Good morning to you, sir.

Mr. Causey: What we are going to do for your oral historyis have three sessions. Today, we will spendsome time talking about your background,personal history, and some of the cases thatyou have handled and been involved in over theyears. During our second session, we willtalk about some personalities over the yearsthat you have known -- judges, lawyers, andother people. And in our final session, wewill focus on the history of this law firm,which proudly carries your name Ed. Let mebegin by asking you if you could just give usa brief biographical sketch of your earlylife, when and where you were born, and whereyou went to school.

Mr. Campbell: I was born in the last century, March 12, 1899in Lexington, Virginia, the home of Washington& Lee University. My father was a professorthere and my grandfather was also a professorthere, and the next door neighbor after theCivil War of Gen. Robert E. Lee with whom hisfamily were closely associated. He[grandfather] was also a friend of StonewallJackson and was a pallbearer at Jackson'sfuneral. So I have quite a Confederatebackground. I went to college at Washington &Lee and graduated when I was 19. Then I wentinto World War I for just a few months at theend of 1918.

Mr. Causey: Where did you serve during the First WorldWar?

2

Mr. Campbell: I was at Field Artillery Officers TrainingCamp outside of Louisville, Kentucky. Afterthe war, I got a Masters Degree in Economicsat Harvard and then studied law at Washington& Lee. I graduated there and took theDistrict of Columbia Bar in 1922.

Mr. Causey: What was the District of Columbia Bar examlike in 1922? What did you have to do to passthe Bar exam?

Mr. Campbell: Well, I know I had a typewriter and that gaveme an advantage over some of the others whohad to write it out in long-hand. It was apretty difficult exam. I don't rememberanything about the details of it except thatonly approximately 50% of those who took itpassed that year.

Mr. Causey: Was it a one-day exam?

Mr. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Causey: Where did you take the exam, do you remember?

Mr. Campbell: No. It was inside a building but I don'tremember where it was.

Mr. Causey: What was your first legal job?

Mr. Campbell: I really didn't start practicing law until1925. I was not at all sure I wanted to be alawyer and got a job with a professionaleconomist, who was working for John Lewis, thehead of the miners union.

Mr. Causey: Was that here in Washington?

Mr. Campbell: In Washington. He went broke and I had tolook for a lawyer's job and in 1925 I foundone.

Mr. Causey: What was your first legal job?

Mr. Campbell: Well, I was a young associate for the firm ofDouglas, Obear & Douglas, which had offices inthe Southern Building and was headed by Mr.Charles A. Douglas of South Carolina. He wasa very distinguished trial lawyer inWashington at the time.

3

Mr. Causey: Was the firm basically a litigation firm?

Mr. Campbell: I would say 50 percent litigation, yes. Wehad only five employees including threepartners and two associates which actually wasabout the same for law firms at that time.There were very few firms with more than sixor seven members in size.

Mr. Causey: Do you remember your very first legalassignment?

Mr. Campbell: Well, I think the first legal assignment I hadwas to carry Mr. Douglas' bag on a trip hemade to Mexico and later to Cuba. Herepresented a number of the oil companies; onesuch company was Standard Oil of New Jersey.He went to Tampico, Mexico and I went alongwith him literally to carry his legal bag andalso to keep him company -- he did not like totravel alone. We went on the train. What Iremember about that trip is that he lost hiscase with the court and the counsel on theother side blatantly told him that he paid thejudge $10,000. It gave me a strange feelingas to the workings of the judicial system.

Mr. Causey: That was your introduction to law practice?

Mr. Campbell: We also made a trip to Havana, Cuba. I don'tremember much about it except I enjoyed Havanaand Mr. Douglas was very gracious in showingme around.

Mr. Causey: When was your trip to Mexico and Cuba?

Mr. Campbell: In late 1925 or early 1926, I don't remember.I think the first actual case I had -- Iremember -- because it was one that I won andwas very proud of -- some lady in Georgetown(my mother had lived in the Georgetown sectionof Washington and this was someone who knew mymother) employed me to defend her in a suit bysomebody who had did some work on her houseand was claiming $300. In talking to her, Ireached a conclusion that she was verydissatisfied with him and that's the reasonshe had not paid him. She said actually it hadcost her a good deal of money. He filed suitagainst her in the Municipal Court and I saidwell why don't we file a counterclaim. Wefiled a counterclaim for about $800. I tried

4

the case and not only did the contractor notwin on his $300, but we got a finding by theCourt, it was not a jury trial, of $500 on hercounterclaim. I was very proud of that. Thatwas, I'm sure, it was the earliest case I hadtried, and that was I think in about 1926 or1927.

Mr. Causey: Is the house still there in Georgetown?

Mr. Campbell: I think so, but I don't know.

Mr. Causey: Do you remember who the judge was?

Mr. Campbell: No I don't. The Municipal Court heard casesof $1,000 or less and I think there were abouteight or nine judges.

Mr. Causey: Where did the Municipal Court sit in 1926?

Mr. Campbell: I know the building and can visualize thebuilding and I think it was on the lower partof 7th Street, not far from PennsylvaniaAvenue. I may be in error because it may havebeen 5th Street, but not far from PennsylvaniaAvenue.

Mr. Causey: So you were an industrious associate atDouglas, Obear & Douglas. Did you starttrying a lot of cases?

Mr. Campbell: I gradually got to trying a lot of cases.Actually, they were good enough to make me amember of the firm, I think around 1930. Oneof the earliest developments I remembergetting involved in, and it was veryeducational from my point of view, waslitigation and detailed work in connectionwith receiverships for the Mayflower Hotel andfor some 8 or 10 buildings. The cheap ones ona bond issue that had been put out by a NewYork firm for Harry Wardman's properties. Hewas a great builder in Washington at the timeand he had built the Wardman Park, now knownas the Sheraton Park Hotel and the CarltonHotel at 16th & K Streets, which were supposedto be the finest hotels in Washington at thetime and a number of apartments and officebuildings. They were all combined in the late1920s in a big mortgage bond issue by a NewYork firm called Halsey Stewart. After 1929when the whole world seemed to collapseeconomically, both the Wardman Park Hotel and

5

this other group of hotels went intoreceivership. We represented the receivers ofthe Wardman group and did some special workfor the receivers in the Mayflower group. Itwas a real experience because you were workingin detail in what turned out to be importantlitigation.

Mr. Causey: So you liked that kind of work?

Mr. Campbell: I did like that kind of work. We alsorepresented the F. H. Smith Company, who hadfinanced a great many office buildings inWashington. A number of them got into realtrouble in the early 1930s in the depression.I got to trying a good many cases.

Mr. Causey: Let me ask you this, Ed. Back in the late1920s and early 1930s, what was the Districtof Columbia court system like? How was itstructured? Where was court held?

Mr. Campbell: I'm glad you asked that question because itwas so different from what it is now. TheUnited States District Court, I think had, asI remember, about four judges. Those fourjudges not only held the -- it may have beenfive -- not only had the jurisdiction offederal courts, but were nisi prius statecourts, if you want to call the District ofColumbia a state, for that purpose. They wereunique in their jurisdiction except that I dobelieve that Puerto Rico and maybe Alaska, atthe time, may have had similar jurisdictions.They tried divorce cases, they tried chancerycases, they tried all damage suits, they triednull contract cases, they tried everything.

Mr. Schaller: The Register of Wills Office was under thefederal court.

Mr. Campbell: The Register of Wills Office, the ProbateOffice was under the jurisdiction of thatcourt. Another thing in connection with it,this was before the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure had been adopted, and you filed adeclaration or a bill in chancery, bill inequity, whichever was appropriate, you fileddemurrers, plea in abatement, you filed pleas,not answers, except in chancery, of course.

Mr. Causey: And this was all under the old code pleadingsystem?

6

Mr. Campbell: It was really under the old common lawpleading system. It was really unique and westill get some benefit from the Court ofAppeals' decisions in matters of substancethat you would not ordinarily find a federaljudge to decide. It was also a U.S. Court ofAppeals of three judges. The courthouse waslocated in this fine, old building andoccupying the entire square between 4th & 5thStreets, John Marshall Place and E Street. Thebuilding is still there and being used.

Mr. Causey: Now I believe you mentioned the Federal Rulesof Procedure -- I think the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure were adopted initially in1937. What was the reaction of members of theBar and the Bench when the new Rules werebeing promoted and came into effect?

Mr. Campbell: I think it depended upon the lawyers. Somelawyers did not like having to learn all overagain the Rules that we followed. Mr. Obeardidn't think very much of them, but I likedthem. I didn't realize the maze that we wouldget into as a result of them.

Mr. Causey: Can you tell us something about your earlyparticipation in the Bar Association?

Mr. Campbell: I became a member of the Association soonafter I went with the firm of Douglas, Obear &Douglas. I have also been interested in andactive in it. I was appointed a CommitteeMember at a fairly early date. Actually Iserved on the Bar Association Committee thatproposed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.I served on a Committee which studied thoseRules and made some suggestions at the timebefore they were adopted. I have served onmany Committees since. I don't know whetheryou want to go into that now or not.

Mr. Causey: When you became a member of the Bar in 1925,1926, how large was the D.C. Bar then? Do youremember?

Mr. Campbell: No, I'm hesitant to make a guess on it. Idon't know -- it was comparably small --certainly not more than a few thousand.

Mr. Causey: Was it an active Bar Association?

7

Mr. Campbell: Oh yes. It gave a special service to lawyersthat was really badly needed. It furnished thelawyers libraries, so to speak, in the oldcourthouse. The judges permitted it becausethey got a benefit from the library being putin the courthouse. I don't recall our duesbut I think they were $10.00 or $15.00 a year.

Mr. Causey: I suspect as lawyers today, back then theythought that was high.

Mr. Campbell: The Bar Association had always been active incertain fields, primarily the library and thensocial, then recommending upon judges, theywere always doing that, and followingprospective legislation in the Congress whichaffected the District of Columbia.

Mr. Causey: Did you hold any position or office in the BarAssociation at any time?

Mr. Campbell: At any time? Yes, I served on a SpecialCommittee which was a Committee of Nine whichreally was the agent of the Bar Association indealing with prospective legislation and alsoin appointments to the federal bench. Then in1962, I think I served as a Director before Iwas elected President. I believe it was in1962 that I was elected President of theDistrict of Columbia Bar Association and afterI had served as President, I was electedseveral times by the Bar Association as one ofits delegates to the House of Delegates to theAmerican Bar Association.

Mr. Causey: Let me stay with the issue of your activitieswith Bar Association Committees and CourtCommittees for a moment. We'll go back alittle bit to the '30s and '40s again. Yousaid a moment ago that the Bar took a role inthe appointment of judges. Was that anactive, meaningful role back then, or was itjust basically window dressing?

Mr. Campbell: No. The Bar always was interested in judicialappointments, naturally. The Committee ofNine would generally have a slate of two orthree and would seek an appointment with theOffice of the Attorney General for the purpose

8

of proposing the names. Sometimes the nameswere accepted. I knew a number of personsrecommended by the Bar became judges on thefederal bench or in the Municipal Court.

Mr. Causey: So members of the Bar would meet with theAttorney General of the United States to talkabout judgeships?

Mr. Campbell: We would ask for an appointment with theAttorney General. We generally were relegatedto one of his deputies. But not always. Wewere well received. I remember distinctlywhen I was on the Committee going to see theAttorney General and it turned out to be aDeputy Attorney General, who was none otherthan Lawrence Walsh, who later served asSpecial Prosecutor in the Iran Contra Hearingsmatters.

Mr. Causey: Let me move forward a little bit, but stay onthe issue of Bar Committees and CourtCommittees. I believe in the 1950s you wereasked to serve on the Civil Rights Committee.Can you tell us something about that.

Mr. Campbell: Well, I was a member of the Civil RightsCommittee. This was in the period, I believeit was after World War II, when, as it wascalled, the "Negro Question," was very much inthe public eye and the District of ColumbiaBar Association was all white. The Negroescould not even use the library in thecourthouse. Agitation was coming and growingas a result of the wartime service of Negroes.Negroes had gone on baseball teams and itbecame a matter of real concern. Agitationfor opening the Bar Association membership toNegroes increased. On the other hand,Washington was really a southern city as faras its background of its inhabitants wereconcerned. There was substantial oppositionto it. We on the Civil Rights Committeerecommended that the Bar Associationmembership be opened to Negroes and I forgetwhat year it was opened. I'm sorry that Ican't tell you the exact year, but it was themid-or late '50s.

Mr. Causey: Do you remember who was on that Committee withyou?

9

Mr. Campbell: Charlie Rhyne was President of theAssociation.

Mr. Causey: Was that the Committee that Edward BennettWilliams chaired?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, he was during part of the time.

Mr. Causey: I believe Abe Fortas was on that Committee.

Mr. Campbell: Mr. Fortas was on that Committee before hewent on the Supreme Court.

Mr. Causey: So the Committee met and considered thequestion of opening the Bar Association toBlacks and minorities and recommended thatthat take place?

Mr. Campbell: Correct.

Mr. Causey: And is that when the Bar Association becameintegrated?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, sir.

Mr. Causey: So when you were President of the Bar in 1962,was the Bar Association integrated in thatyear?

Mr. Campbell: Yes it was.

Mr. Causey: Do you remember any other committees youserved on in connection with the BarAssociation or any of the other CourtCommittees?

Mr. Campbell: Well, I served on a Committee but I cannottell you the name of the Bar AssociationCommittee which purported to supervise thejudges.

Mr. Causey: How did you supervise judges back then?

Mr. Campbell: We would meet and if we found a judge that wedid not think was acting appropriately, wewould make a certain recommendation. Iremember particularly Judge Alexander, of theMunicipal Court, who had many, many detractorsand many, many complaints filed against him.He finally had to get off the Court.

Mr. Causey: How many members were on that Committee?

10

Mr. Campbell: I think there were five. I'm trying to thinkof the other members, but my memory fails me.I do remember Robert Bennett, who hasrepresented President Clinton in certainlitigation right now. I have served on anumber of other association committees and Ibelieve you have a list of some of them.

Mr. Causey: I believe you were on the Virginia BarRelations Committee with Oliver Gasch in themid-1960s. You were on the U.S. Court ofAppeals Committee on Admissions andGrievances.

Mr. Campbell: That is correct.

Mr. Causey: Let me ask you some questions about thedevelopment of the Unified Bar. You wereinvolved in the movement to establish aunified bar, I believe, in the late 1960s. Isthat right?

Mr. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Causey: What are your recollections of what thatdebate was all about?

Mr. Campbell: From the District of Columbia BarAssociation's point of view, it was viewedwith, shall I say -- antagonism -- because itdid not want any interference with the workthat it was doing. We realized that it had tobe done and really needed to be done. Thequestion of what the Unified Bar should do wasa highly controversial one. The Unified Baris, of course, another bar association. Youautomatically had to become a member and thecommittee recognized that and accepted it asneeded. The question was really the role ofthe unified bar and there was substantialcontroversy over that.

Mr. Causey: What was it that got people thinking abouthaving a mandatory unified bar? What led tothat movement?

Mr. Campbell: My recollection was that it was the court thatwas concerned and that the court wanted lawyerdiscipline and bar responsibility.

Mr. Causey: This would be the D.C. Court of Appeals?

Mr. Campbell: Yes.

11

Mr. Causey: There was a lot of opposition to that?

Mr. Campbell: Let's say dragging their feet. I don't thinkit was formal opposition to it.

Mr. Causey: I think that the first year of the formalUnified Bar was 1971, I believe, is that yourrecollection?

Mr. Campbell: I can't give you the date.

Mr. Causey: Ed, let me ask you some questions about someof your cases over the years and I've beenfortunate enough to be able to review some ofthe cases that you were involved in, in factmany of the cases you were involved in, andthere are quite a few over your distinguishedcareer. Let me first name some cases and ifyou could give me your recollections of someof those cases, if you have some. I'll dothis in chronological order so we'll comeforward in time, but let me take you back to1944. I think you were involved in a casecalled Parmelee v. U.S.?

Mr. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Causey: What was that case about?

Mr. Campbell: I had been asked by the American CivilLiberties Union to represent them in thiscase. I think this was the only case Iactually served with for the American CivilLiberties Union in, but they really wanted totest the obscenity law in its application tonudism and there are federal statutes whichforbade the importation of obscene books andprovided for their confiscation. It permittedthe testing of the action of confiscation inthe U.S. Court of Appeals. There was a bookon nudism which was confiscated and I believeParmelee ordered the book. I didn't know Mr.Parmelee. I was really acting for theAmerican Civil Liberties Union. This book onnudism -- I looked at it and read it -- andreally it was anything but sexy. Kind ofboring from that point of view! But it didhave some pictures. It had a frontal pictureof a nude man and it had a frontal picture ofa nude man and woman standing in front of eachother. Anything but sexy, but there theywere. The book was confiscated on the groundsthat it was obscene. I represented the

12

American Civil Liberties Union in attackingthe ruling and the Parmelee case was theresult. As I recall in the Parmelee case, itwas a 2 to 1 decision by the U.S. Court ofAppeals, the majority holding that under thecurrent mores the book was not obscene.

Mr. Causey: Do you remember who was the dissenting judge?

Mr. Campbell: The dissenting judge was Fred Vinson who laterbecame Chief Justice of the United States. Hebecame my warm, personal friend and actuallyhe became a friend of so many members of theBar. He had been a distinguished member ofCongress and I believe he had been Chairman ofthe Committee called the Naval AffairsCommittee, but he was an expert on the Navy inthe U.S. Congress. I wondered whether hewould make a good judge. Actually, he turnedout to be a good judge.

Mr. Causey: Except for this one case?

Mr. Campbell: Yes!

Mr. Causey: Well, that was in 1944. You had anotherinteresting case in 1944 and that was theGiese case. Do you remember that case?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, this was during World War II and Giesewas a conscientious objector. He had raisedhis conscientious objection. He was not achurch man, but I reached the conclusion thathe honestly felt that war was morally a sinand under any circumstances that he had noright to participate.

Mr. Causey: So he did not want to serve in World War II?

Mr. Campbell: He did not want to serve in it. The SelectiveService Committee, I'm not sure if I've gotthe exact name right, in the District ofColumbia, had called him up for service. Heraised the objection as a conscientiousobjector. They ordered him to serve pendingthe ruling. I raised the question of theconstitutionality of such action. I am notsure I am stating the case legally orcompletely accurately because my recollectionof 50 years ago is not as accurate as itshould be but in any event he was indicted andtried before Judge David Pine in the DistrictCourt and found guilty of criminally violating

13

the Selective Service Act laws. We appealedthe case to the U.S. Court of Appeals in theDistrict of Columbia, which was still then athree-judge court as I recall, and the Court,by a 2 to l decision, affirmed the convictionof the District Court. I asked for certiorarito the Supreme Court and certiorari wasgranted. I remember arguing the case, in factthis was one of my especially interestingexperiences as a lawyer. I was arguing thecase before the nine members of the SupremeCourt and after I had been talking for about10 minutes, Justice William O. Douglas, whohad been sitting there, just suddenly andwithout saying a word, got up, turned around,turned his back on me, and walked out of theCourt, leaving only eight judges. I finishedarguing and the Court took it underadvisement. Several months later, I got aone-sentence memorandum saying the Court wasdivided 4 to 4, so the lower court wastherefore affirmed. That's all the SupremeCourt said.

Mr. Causey: Did you ever learn why Justice Douglas leftthe argument?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, I was determined to learn. Finally, I gotword from his Clerk that Justice Douglas hadhelped President Roosevelt's Administration inthe preparation of regulations for theSelective Service and had decided that heshould not sit. So that's how that case ended.Poor Mr. Giese went to jail as I recall.

Mr. Causey: Do you remember the Howard v. Capital TransitCo. case?

Mr. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Causey: What was that case about?

Mr. Campbell: Virtually the only thing I remember in thatcase is I lost it and the special reason thatI lost it, which came to be perfectly clear.I had represented a lady who claimed she washit by a streetcar. The streetcars then cameto a stop adjacent to a platform. There was aplatform there and you got on the platform andthen got onto the car. Well, this lady, whatwas her name?

Mr. Causey: Howard. Ms. Howard.

14

Mr. Campbell: Howard? Against Capital Transit?

Mr. Causey: Against Capital Transit.

Mr. Campbell: Ms. Howard, this lady, about 40-ish, turnedout to be 45 years old, claimed that thestreetcar came over the edge of the platform;that the platform improperly came too close tothe streetcar and that she was on the platformand hit by the streetcar. The defense was shejust got right in the way of the streetcar.This was a jury trial and I remember Ms.Howard going on the stand and answered thequestions very well and she was beingcross-examined by the Capital Transit Co.'scounsel. In the course of his examination hesaid, "By the way, Ms. Howard, how old areyou?" She said, "I'm 39." He said, "Are yousure you are 39?" She said, "Oh yes, I'm 39.On my birthday, I'll be 40 next January."Well, Capital Transit counsel then pulled outa slip of paper and said, "Will you look atthis, Ms. Howard." Then she turned completelywhite! She said, "That's my birthcertificate." He said, "According to yourbirth certificate, you are 45! Are you 45?"She said, "Yes, I'm 45." He said, "No furtherquestions." It was a very dramatic andshocking experience for all of us.

Mr. Causey: I take it you lost the case. Did you know she

was 45?

Mr. Campbell: No, I knew she had told me she was 39. I didnot know she was 45, I thought she was 39.

Mr. Causey: So it was a surprise to you too?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, I was shocked.

Mr. Causey: Those things happen.

Mr. Campbell: Not only did it happen and she never forgaveme incidentally and I was a bit unhappy aboutthat because she seemed perfectly responsiblefinancially, we had advanced for her account,the costs of the case and the costs of herdeposition. She never paid a dime of thosecosts!

Mr. Causey: I was asking you about some cases that youhandled in the 1940s. Let me ask you aboutone other matter that may have taken place at

15

that time. Do you remember being involved inany of the hearings that investigated theincident at Pearl Harbor in 1941?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, I do remember. My partner, Hugh Obear,was directly involved there. After the war,there was a Congressional investigation of thesituation in the American Navy, Air Force andthe Army, which indicated that they werenegligent in not knowing that the Japanesewere going to bomb Pearl Harbor, and in notsaying anything about it or doing anythingabout it. I think it was Admiral Kimmel whoreally lost his status in the Navy inconnection with the matter. Among thoseinvestigated, however, was Admiral Stark.Obear represented Admiral Stark in certainCongressional hearings on the subject. Iforget exactly what position Admiral Starkhad, but I believe it was more or less staffpositions, rather than directly in the activeNavy.

Mr. Causey: What role did you play in those hearings?

Mr. Campbell: I really played no direct role other than toconsult with my partner from time-to-time, orrather he consulted with me, as lawyers do, tobat the thing around to see what position youshould take.

Mr. Causey: Did you attend the hearings?

Mr. Campbell: No. I think I attended one of them. I playedno active role in them.

Mr. Causey: What was the result of the investigation?

Mr. Campbell: I do not think any censorship resulted againstAdmiral Stark. That is my recollection.

Mr. Causey: Let me ask you about a few more cases.

Mr. Campbell: I used the word censorship. That is not theword -- I don't think they found anythingagainst him.

Mr. Causey: Let me ask you, Ed, about a few more cases andthen we will come back and talk about thecourt system in more detail. I know you wereinvolved in a number of cases that wereconcerned with the racial situation thatexisted in the country in the 1950s and

16

1960s. Can you tell us what you recall aboutthe case of James v. Duckworth?

Mr. Campbell: James v. Duckworth was the second case; thefirst one was James v. Almond, they came oneright after the other.

Mr. Causey: These were in 1959 I believe, right?

Mr. Campbell: It was in 1958 they came. I remember vividlybeing in my office in the Southern Building inWashington when a group of businessmen came tosee me from Norfolk and said that they had todo something about the Norfolk schools. TheNorfolk schools had been closed as a result ofthe "massive resistance" laws of Virginia.The "massive resistance" laws of Virginia,which had been promulgated and furthered bySenator Byrd, provided that if a court decreebecame effective which directed thedesegregation of any Virginia school system,that those schools affected would beimmediately, absolutely closed. The title ofthe schools would be transferred from theSchool Board to the Governor of the State andthe school could not be reopened unless anduntil every parent of every child in theschool accepted the fact that it should bereopened on a desegregated, integrated basis.As a result of the application of that law,Judge Hoffman in Virginia had ordered that allof the schools in Norfolk admit 15 Negroapplicants who had applied. The schools werethereupon closed and had been closed for acouple of months and there were some 15,000children in Norfolk out on the streets, so tospeak. These men, including a couple ofbankers, came to see me and said we can't havethis in Norfolk, but the situation in Norfolkis such that we cannot get what we consider ahigh-class, reputable lawyer to represent us.We're much more interested in having theschools opened than we are in whether they aresegregated or desegregated. "Would you begood enough to represent us?" and they offeredme a substantial retainer. I talked with mywife about it and decided that I could notlive with myself if I did not say I would doit. So, I did accept it and we argued thecase before a three-judge court in Norfolk ona motion for preliminary injunction. Therewas a huge crowd in the courtroom; it wasoverflowing. It was a very emotional period.

17

The court took the case and decided thatVirginia didn't have to have any public schoolsystem if they didn't want to, but that itcould not close certain schools on the groundsof race or direct integration and keep otherschools open at the same time and so entered amandatory injunction requiring the Governor toreopen the schools. They appealed it to theSupreme Court, but the Supreme Court did nothear oral argument but reaffirmed the lowercourt's decision and schools were reopened onJanuary 19, 1959. I remember the date sovividly because it was the birthday of myConfederate hero, General Robert E. Lee, and Iwondered how he would feel if the schools hadbeen directed to be reopened on an integratedbasis on that date. The Virginia Legislaturewas in session in the early part of 1959.Senator Harry Byrd, Jr. (I think he was theone) offered a resolution providing stoppingall appropriations for the public schools inVirginia. In other words, the resolution wasto abolish the public school system inVirginia rather than to integrate the schools.That motion lost by a single vote. That's howclose Virginia came to abolishing the publicschool system in the State of Virginia, ratherthan to integrate the schools.

Mr. Causey: Was that after this case or before the case?

Mr. Campbell: It was after the decision in the case. Whenthe court had ordered that the schools reopenon January 19 and the resolution in effectwould have abolished any appropriations forthe purpose of reopening all of the schools inthe State. That failed by a single vote andthe schools were reopened and reopened withoutincident, it was almost as though there was aneurosis which was suddenly dispelled when theworld didn't come to an end and all the littlechildren didn't inter-marry when the schoolswere desegregated.

Mr. Causey: Now you were involved in a number of otherimportant cases concerning race relations inthe country.

Mr. Campbell: I had been involved in cases involving thesegregated seating city laws and one or twoothers but they were not District of Columbiacases.

18

Mr. Causey: One famous case you were involved in that Iwould like to have you tell us about a littlebit is the Mann v. Davis case. That was oneof the first one-man, one-vote cases, Ibelieve.

Mr. Campbell: That's right.

Mr. Causey: Its companion cases, I believe, were Sims v.Reynolds and Hughes v. WMCA. I think theremay be one or two more companion cases. Isthat correct?

Mr. Campbell: I think there were three or four of them thatwe argued before the Supreme Court. The casesinvolved the question of allotment ofdelegates or state senators in the statelegislatures. Most states had provisionsthat, at least the lower house, that thedelegates would be apportioned in accordancewith the population. But that provision inthe Constitution had been honored in thebreach rather than in the letter because thelegislators simply did not want to votethemselves out of office and the provision wasbeing substantially ignored in legislaturesthroughout the country. I had been asked bythe members of the House of Delegates and inthe State Senate in Northern Virginia torepresent them in the matter because we hadonly one-third of the representation that wewere entitled to receive under the StateConstitution. The situation in New York,Connecticut, Alabama, and Georgia was evenworse. We filed a lawsuit before a three-judgecourt in Alexandria raising the issue, and thecourt held that the Virginia legislature hadnot complied with the Constitution in thematter. The case was appealed, rather certwas asked for and granted by the Governor ofVirginia and came before the Supreme Court forjoint argument with three similar cases whichI have referred to. I had the privilege or theresponsibility, you might say, of coordinatingthe argument for all of the jurisdictions andthe representatives came here to Washingtonand we talked about it and decided to makeargument. The Supreme Court spent more time,I think, in hearing the argument on that casethan it had spent in any other cases before orsince, three and one-half days, I think itwas.

19

Mr. Causey: That was in 1964 or 1965?

Mr. Campbell: It was one of those years.

Mr. Causey: Did you argue the case in the Supreme Court?

Mr. Campbell: Oh yes, yes.

Mr. Causey: What do you remember about the argument?

Mr. Campbell: Well, the primary thing I remember was theposition that the United States Department ofJustice took. They were represented byArchibald Cox, who got involved in othermatters later.

Mr. Causey: He was the Solicitor General?

Mr. Campbell: He was the Solicitor General. The UnitedStates took the position that it was desirableand that we were constitutionally entitled tohave proportionate representation in the lowerhouses of the state legislatures. But becauseof the practice in the United States Senate,in having representation by states, theGovernor was not going to argue or take theposition that there should be equalrepresentation in the upper houses of thestate legislatures. I remember suddenlypulling out of a hat the argument thatVirginia would step in -- where I would bepossibly a fool, but fools step in whereangels fear to tread -- and that I thoughtthat states voters were going to have equalrepresentation. There was no reason whyproportionate representation should not begranted in the upper house, as well as thelower house. It was a dramatic argument butactually I think, if I want to brag for aminute, I think it may have been one of themost important cases in the century here inthe United States because if the statelegislatures had been permitted to goindefinitely in the course that they werepursuing, the rural areas would completelycontrol the veto on any modern legislation. Ido not think the Republic could have continuedto indefinitely exist under the circumstances.I do recall getting some word, a little birdtold me, that he understood that the Court wasgoing to hand down its decision on a certainday and if I wanted to, I better be in thecourtroom. I recall going to the Supreme

20

Court, and I wondered whether that was rightin that guess or not, but I saw sitting on theside of the court the wives of most of theJustices. I said, well that must be it, andthe Justices came in and did render theopinion and it was as I recall, a 6 to 3 vote.

Mr. Causey: How did you know they were going to give theiropinion that day?

Mr. Campbell: Some lawyer told me. I forget who it was. Idon't recall where or how he got theinformation and I didn't inquire.

Mr. Causey: If I remember correctly, Chief Justice Warrenwrote the opinion, is that right?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, the opinion came from Chief JusticeWarren. I have been told, and again, I do notknow the source, but I was told that theprimary writer of the opinion was JusticeWhite, but it came back under Chief JusticeWarren's name.

Mr. Causey: Let me ask you about some other cases equallyas interesting, perhaps not with the farranging political magnitude that Mann v. Davisand some of your other cases had, but again,still focusing on the early '60s, I believeyou were involved in the case involving themoving of the Washington Senators toMinneapolis. Is that correct?

Mr. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Causey: Was that the Murphy v. Washington AmericanLeague Baseball?

Mr. Campbell: Mr. Murphy held a minority interest in theWashington Senators. He was vigorouslyopposed to having the ball club moved toMinneapolis and thought he had some right tobe heard to stop it. Clark Griffith, however,controlled the majority of the stock. Murphywanted me to file a suit to make them rescindtheir movement to Minneapolis. Frankly, Iknew we didn't have much of a case because themajority generally had a right to determinewhat would be done with the ball club. Wetook the position that it was an abuse ofdiscretion and that it was against theinterest of the ball club. I don't know whatother grounds we took, we argued it. But, I

21

remember going out to Minneapolis and enjoyingvery much taking the depositions of Griffithand some of the ball players, which was aninteresting experience. But, the lower courtdecided against this and the appellate courtaffirmed it. Roger Robb, my close friend,represented Clark Griffith and the majorityinterest in the Washington Ball Club. Helater became a member of the United StatesCourt of Appeals.

Mr. Causey: I imagine you had a lot of supporters behindthat case.

Mr. Campbell: That's right! That's right! We had moresupporters than we had law!

Mr. Causey: Were you a baseball fan?

Mr. Campbell: Oh yes.

Mr. Causey: You went to Griffith Stadium a lot and watchedthe Senators?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, I went to Griffith Stadium over and over.

Mr. Causey: Now another case that you were involved in, Ibelieve in the mid-'60s, which was a case ofsome notoriety, was the case involving theUnited Mine Workers. Do you remember thatcase? I think the case was Howard v. Brown.

Mr. Campbell: Oh, no, that did not involve the United MineWorkers, it involved Judge Goldsborough, whosechief claim to fame was that he had been ajudge in World War II in the 1940s and heshowed real courage in fining John L. Lewis,who ran the United Mine Workers, of whichLewis was president of, fining them $2 millionfor contempt of court because they had notobeyed an order to resume mining during thewar. It was Judge Goldsborough who waspresiding in this case, it had some interest,I think personal interest, it certainly did tome. Before a jury I was representing a mannamed Howard from Wilmington who was a lawyerthere and who had represented this firm,headed by Brown, in connection with one of hiscorporations in Wilmington. The State ofDelaware had jurisdiction over some mattersrelated to their corporate structure and hadsent him a bill for $10,000 which had not beenpaid and he asked me if I would represent him

22

in the case. The case came on before JudgeGoldsborough and a jury. I remember the casevery well because of what happened during thecase. We argued the case, both sides put onwitnesses, but I remember one of ourwitnesses, in fact it was Mr. Howard himself,when giving his testimony before the jury, wastelling his story, and right in the middle ofhis testimony, the judge made a snortingsound, we looked at the judge and the judgewas sound asleep. I mean sound asleep! Whatwould we do? When I went to law school I wasnot taught what to do if a judge goes to sleepin the middle of the trial. Obviously, westopped and waited for about two minutes. Thejury was just as interested in the drama as wewere. What would we finally do? I rememberasking the marshal who sits by the judgeclosely. I said, "Would you tap the judge andget him awake so we can proceed. He looked atme and said, "Mr. Campbell, if you want thejudge awake, I think you better do thewaking."

Mr. Causey: Well, how did you wake up the judge?

Mr. Campbell: What are going to do? What actually happenedand what we finally did was, Mr. Howard, thewitness, as you know in the courts of theDistrict of Columbia, sits up there on thepedestal by the court. Howard finally touchedthe judge and the judge jumped and said, "Askyour next question, Mr. Campbell." Actually,we won the case.

Mr. Causey: Was it a jury trial?

Mr. Campbell: Yes it was.

Mr. Causey: Now. Moving forward a little bit into thelater part of the 1960s, you were involved inan important case involving the desegregationof the D.C. school system, I believe. Thatwas the Hobson v. Hansen case?

Mr. Campbell: Yes. In that case, Mr. Thomas Jackson, whosename is in this firm and one of the foundersof this firm, 10 years before we becamepartners, asked me if I would join him inattacking the detailed directions given by theDistrict Court with respect to theadministration of the District schools underthe desegregation laws. In a case in the

23

District Court, Judge Skelly Wright of theUnited States Court of Appeals, had come andaccepted an assignment in the district courtto try the case. Judge Skelly Wright had comeout with a detailed direction for managementof the District of Columbia schools that Ithought was outrageous in the sense that hewas trying to be superintendent of schools andgoing to elaborate details as to just what wasto be done under every detailed circumstancethat might arise. We appealed it to the Courtof Appeals from his decision. Judge Bazelon,who was also a highly-liberal and I call anextremist on the Court of Appeals, wassitting, I believe Judge Burger was sitting,too, on the Court of Appeals. We argued thatcase, but we didn't get very far. I think wegot a divided court, as I recall in that case,but we lost it when the case was affirmed.

Mr. Causey: Did you handle any other cases with TomJackson before the two of you became partners,is that the only case?

Mr. Campbell: No, I don't recall any other case. I don'tthink I handled any other actual trials withJackson before then. We had been associatingon opposite sides in many matters which hadnot come to trial.

Mr. Causey: I believe you also had a case in which youwere representing -- was it a Russian spy?What was that case all about?

Mr. Campbell: That's in the Eastern District of Virginia.Judge Oren Lewis of the United States DistrictCourt of the Eastern District wanted toappoint somebody to represent a man beingaccused of being a Russian spy who had beenemployed in the Defense Department, anAmerican citizen. He appointed Ed Pritchardof Fairfax and me to represent him. We foundout after conversations with him that it wasno doubt that he was a Russian spy. He usedto take detailed material concerning theweapons that the United States had and detailsand information concerning them were taken anddelivered to a Russian representative in theparking lot at Seven Corners, a shoppingcenter in Fairfax County, Virginia. He

24

finally admitted it. The case was interestingbecause of the subject matter, but we finallypersuaded him to plead guilty and he wassentenced and served a term.

Mr. Causey: Do you remember what year that was?

Mr. Campbell: I think it was in the late '60s, but I'm notsure.

Mr. Causey: I believe you also had a case involving theHatch Act, did you not?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, that involved the Hatch Act. That wasalso a Northern Virginia case in which weattacked the constitutionality of the HatchAct, but did not get very far, it wassustained in the Court of Appeals.

Mr. Causey: What do you think over your long career, whatdo you consider your most important case thatyou worked on? Important as having the mostfar-reaching effect on the law and on oursociety?

Mr. Campbell: Well in no uncertain question, it was the oneman, one vote cases. That, together with themassive resistance case in Virginia was, Ithink, the most exciting cases I had. TheSupreme Court had already in Brown v. Board ofEducation decided the fundamental principle inthe desegregation cases in 1954. So, in areal sense, the massive resistance decisioncase that we had in 1959 was simply carryingout the decision which had already been made.The one man, one vote cases really establishedvery important new law I think for the UnitedStates.

Mr. Causey: What was the most interesting case that youthink you worked on in your career? Do youhave one or two that stand out as being themost interesting, most challenging to you as alawyer?

Mr. Campbell: I'm going to ask my partner, Ben Dulany, tocomment briefly here on a case that he and Ihad with James Benn.

Mr. Dulany: Garfield v. Sankin. Joe Garfield arrived atthe office and told Ed a story that was a realcock and bull story and it strained credulity.So Ed got a court reporter, put him under oath

25

and took his deposition sitting in Ed'soffice. In a sense he had let him ramble, itwasn't strictly a question and answer, but hewould give him a broad question and let him gothrough his whole story. We kept that in theoffice safe in case somebody raised a questionlater that we were taking a case that weshouldn't have taken. Ed for once did notmake the best fee arrangement. We tried thatcase for three weeks one year, had a mistrial.Took it up again the following September,adopted the three weeks testimony and we triedthe case before Judge Bill Jones and we lasteduntil about Christmastime and he finallydecided on liability and we went back foranother two or three weeks in January ondamages before a Special Master. Bill Joneswrote a 99-page opinion. He said he alwayssaid he would never write a 100-page opinionso he stopped on the 99th page and we wereable to renegotiate and came out pretty wellon it. The subject was over the ownership ofthe Garfield Apartments out on ConnecticutAvenue. There was the world's great con manby the name of James T. Benn and he hadhornswoggled Garfield and he had gone to bedwith Garfield's wife. There was money buriedout in a tin can in the back yard. He had inthe office of Hammill, Park & Sanders, hiddenin their air conditioning, he had a briefcasefull of money. We had diamond brokers whowere both bona fide purchasers -- It lookedlike Damon Runyon really, the cast ofcharacters and it went on and on and on.

Mr. Campbell: I remember at the end of that case JamesBenn's lawyer came in the office and suggestedsome compromise of some action which wasobviously tainted and no one honorable couldget involved in it. And I remember, this wasthe only time that I had actually did this,ordering him out of the office.

Mr. Dulany: He then went ahead and dropped his lawyer andtried the case pro se. He just made amonkey's circus out of his game.

Mr. Campbell: You remember you said that Judge Jones enjoyedthat!

Mr. Dulany: Well, he got Holtzoff was in it at one pointon some motions and he used the first time wehad comparable negligence. He was arguing

26

that back and forth. Really he didn't put itin those words but that is what it came downto. Benn had been in Tax Court before JudgeKern and the Tax Court opinion had some of themost scathing language referring to James T.Benn and what kind of a crook he was and howhe sold bearer stock and all the myriad ofthings that were crazy and I kept trying toget it into evidence. I knew it wasinadmissible but I wanted to get it in anywayand every night I would come back from trialand Ed would say "You didn't get that damnfool opinion in evidence did you?" I said,"No, but I tried" and he would moan and groan.Finally, one day Judge Jones' law clerk cameup to me, it was on a Friday, and said "CouldI borrow that opinion, I would like to readit." I said, "Certainly." So, I lent him theopinion and I never tried to get it admittedagain -- I knew it had been admitted de facto.Bill Jones would never admit that he had readit but I am sure he had.

Mr. Campbell: There were a lot of other dramatic cases thatI have been involved in but I believe thatthey were more dramatic to me than I thinkthat they might to other people and I don'tbelieve there would be any advantage intalking about them here.

Mr. Dulany: How about your criminal case, Ed?

Mr. Campbell: Which one?

Mr. Dulany: Alan Kay.

Mr. Campbell: Well, we represented Alan Kay and it was anEastern District of Virginia case but it wastried in Norfolk because they were afraid theycould not get a fair jury in Alexandria. AlanKay was charged with having bribed the membersof the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax Countyin order to get the zoning that he wanted. Irecall we tried that case and I think BenDulany did most of the trial work there but Irecall arguing the case and I understand thatI transgressed the duties of my office thereby saying that I was getting to be an old manand that Alan Kay was young enough to be myson and he could not have committed thisoffense. Ben Dulany has reported to me thatthe court leaned forward as though he were ofthe opinion that that was not a good legal

27

argument but it seemed to work in this case.We got Kay off.

Mr. Causey: There is another case that someone mentionedto me that really was not a judicial case, butit was a case in the Ecclesiastical Courts.Do you remember handling that case?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, that involved the right of a woman priestwho had not been recognized formally by theEpiscopal Church to administer communion. Inthe early days before women were recognized aslegitimate priests in the Episcopal Church, agroup of retired bishops had purported toordain certain women as priests. Their actionwas not recognized by the presiding Bishop ofthe Episcopal Church because the generalconvention of the church had not authorizedwomen priests. Of course, whether or notwomen should be priests was a highlycontroversial issue at the moment. FatherWendt, who was a rector of a church in theDistrict of Columbia, got one of thesepurported women priests to administercommunion in his church whereupon the bishopof the diocese of the District of Columbiabrought charges against Father Wendt andassigned the matter to a three-judge panel tohear on the question of whether Father Wendtshould be censured, demoted, de-frocked, orwhat should be done with him. Well, thispanel asked if I would serve as an "assessor,"which means legal advisor to the panel, inwhich I did. I remember the panel and we weretrying to get formal in the matter and when weheard the case we all wore academic costumesto try to increase the formality of thehearing. The chief thing I remember in thehearing, incidentally, the panel decided 2 to1 that they would censure Father Wendt, butnot de-frock him. I was opposed to anythingbeing done, but I did not have a vote. Thelay member of the panel also dissented. But,during the hearing, we decided that it wouldbe a good plan and might help us or help thecourt a little if we got the presiding Bishopof the Episcopal Church, you know there is apresiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, tobe a witness. We didn't think he would wantto come, but we concocted an idea that wewould act as though we were a formal legalbody acting under the law and so we proceededto subpoena the presiding Bishop and we mailed

28

him a copy of the subpoena, directing him tocome on such-and-such a date. I said mailedhim a copy, I believe we telegraphed it. Thepresiding Bishop sort of thumbed his nose atus and said he was going up to Canada thatday. Whereupon again presumptuously, but veryinterestingly, I got the EcclesiasticalTribunal to issue a formal decree holding thatthe presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Churchwas in contempt for ignoring the subpoena thathad been issued against him. Well, the chiefdraw in that case is that it made the frontpage of the New York Times.

Mr. Causey: Did the court hold the Bishop in contempt?

Mr. Campbell: The Ecclesiastical Court held him in contempt,but we couldn't put the presiding Bishop injail, so he was just out in contempt and thatwas it.

Mr. Causey: How did that case end up?

Mr. Campbell: By 2 to 1 vote, the Ecclesiastical members ofthe court voted over the objection of the laymember of the court to reprimand Father Wendt.

Mr. Causey: In these cases that we have been talkingabout, who do you remember as being your mostworthy adversary?

Mr. Campbell: I can't answer that though I had a great manyworthy adversaries.

Mr. Causey: Which ones stand out in your mind thinkingabout these cases?

Mr. Campbell: Let me think about that and report back. Ican't answer that right now. I wouldn't knowhow to answer it right now.

Mr. Causey: Ed, to conclude this segment of your oralhistory, we have been talking about all ofthese cases that you handled over the years,can you tell us a little bit about how thecourt itself functioned, how it scheduledmatters, what the day-to-day practice of lawwas like before these courts, particularly thetrial courts.

Mr. Campbell: Let me say first, that in all of my years ofexperience in the District of Columbia, I havenever appeared before a judge that I thought

29

was corrupt. Some of the judges are muchbetter than the others, but all of them, frommy point of view, tried to do a good job andthat's quite a tribute, I think, to thejudicial system in the District of Columbia.In the early days, the district courts did nothave cases assigned directly to them. Theytook potluck and a judge might hear part of acase and another judge hear another part ofit. On Friday mornings, running from 10:00a.m. to whatever time a judge would sit, sayfrom 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., the judge wouldhear all motions, every Friday. When wefinally came to the trial of a case as I say,the assignment of a case, that part of thecase was by lot so to speak or just to thejudge that happened to be open at the time.You want to know what his practice was?

Mr. Causey: You say motions were heard on Fridays?

Mr. Campbell: Well the motions were heard on Fridays. Thetrials were held on the other days.

Mr. Causey: How long would judges sit during an averageday of a jury trial?

Mr. Campbell: Until 3:30 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. If you gotOliver Gasch or some of the other judges theywould sit until 5:00 p.m.

Mr. Causey: We will have another segment where we willtalk about your recollections of judges, inparticular, but are there any judges thatstand out in your mind as being outstandingjurists that you appeared before?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, but I would like to answer that the nexttime.

Mr. Causey: We will save that for the next session. Well,Ed, we've been spending the last almost twohours, a little over two hours, talking aboutsome of your cases that you've handled in yourcareer and it's evident from our discussionthat you have had a remarkable career at theBar, involving a number of fascinating casesand interesting personalities and verysignificant issues.

Mr. Campbell: It's a long time!

30

Mr. Causey: It's a rich history of involvement at the Barand I want to thank you for spending some timewith us this morning to talk about thesecases. During our next session we will talkabout some of the judges and lawyers and someof the personalities that you remember overthe years when you were at the Bar. Anythingyou want to add as we finish this segment onyour cases and your personal background?

Mr. Campbell: No, I'm glad to give whatever information Ihave on my experiences.

Mr. Causey: Well this is very helpful and veryentertaining.

Mr. Dulany: May I add one thing -- During the entire timethat I have practiced law with Ed I have neverknown him when he was not enthusiastic andhappy with what he was doing. I have neverknown him to be fed up with the law or even aparticular case in the law. Maybe he has beenbut he never showed it.

Mr. Causey: Well, that is quite a compliment. Ed, thankyou again for joining us this morning. Thisends this segment of the oral history withEdmund Campbell and this is October 7, 1994.

31

ED CAMPBELL ORAL HISTORY PROJECT

At The offices of Jackson & Campbell, P.C.Washington, D.C.

Friday, November 11, 1994Second Session

Mr. Causey: My name is Bill Causey and with me is EdCampbell and Maria Perugini and this is thesecond session of our oral history interviewwith Ed Campbell for the Historical Societyfor the District of Columbia Circuit. Todayis Friday, November 11, 1994. Ed, goodmorning.

Mr. Campbell: Good morning.

Mr. Causey: Ed, what I would like to do today is to askyou to share with us some recollections aboutdifferent judges and lawyers and individualsthat you have worked with over your long andillustrious career. You've been a practicinglawyer in this city since 1925, so you havehad a chance to meet and work with and arguebefore and get to know a lot of people in thelegal community in Washington, including a lotof judges.

Mr. Campbell: That is right, sir.

Mr. Causey: When you were in your first few years ofpractice as a young lawyer arguing cases, doyou remember any particular lessons that youlearned from judges in those early cases thathave stayed with you for your entire career?

Mr. Campbell: Well, I think the first lesson is to keep onthe subject. The second lesson is to talk toand communicate with the judges. In fact, Ithink that is the most essential thing in thetrial of a case, to communicate and talk topeople and not at them. Some young lawyershave briefed their cases and can read extractsfrom the cases and unless you are actually ona one-to-one basis with the jury or the judge,you are really wasting your time. I thinkthat is the principal lesson.

Mr. Causey: Do you remember some of the judges that youappeared before in your first few years ofpractice?

32

Mr. Campbell: I am sure I do. One of them was, in fact, themost startling one from my point of view, wasJudge Bailey. Judge Bailey was a federaljudge in the United States District Court. Ithink he was there in the late 1920s orcertainly in the 1930s. Have you got a list?

Mr. Causey: Yes. Thomas Jennings Bailey.

Mr. Campbell: When did he go on the bench?

Mr. Causey: I have him serving in the District Court from1918 to 1963.

Mr. Campbell: Right. A long session.

Mr. Causey: What do you remember about Judge Bailey?

Mr. Campbell: Well, Judge Bailey scared every young lawyerthat ever appeared before him, he scared us todeath! He came, I think, from Kentucky orperhaps it was Tennessee. He came on thebench without ever really having practicedlaw. He was an able man in the sense that heknew the rules of law pretty well. He hadstudied it and he had been a clerk in one ofthe courts. He had no warmth or relationshipwith the lawyers that appeared before himexcept to talk at them. He stated hisconclusion of the law in words that left notact that that was it. He was absolutelywithout mercy, shall I say, or without give insetting a time for the trials of his cases orfor the hearing the motions and you wereeither there or you would regret it for sometime.

Mr. Causey: Do you remember any particular cases that youtried before Judge Bailey?

Mr. Campbell: I don't believe I can pick out any one. Iknow I lost several of them.

Mr. Causey: What do you think are the qualities that makefor a good judge?

Mr. Campbell: A good judge must have an intuitive knowledgeof right and wrong in the cases that comebefore him. He must always be able to see theforest and not simply get lost among thetrees. He must be able to cut through, shallI say the crap in a case, and get to the heart

33

of it. In his dealings with lawyers, heshould be courteous at all times, firm in hisrulings, and hear the case even though heknows what he is going to decide in advance,or at least thinks he knows. He should neverpre-judge a case and he should not let thelawyers think he has pre-judged it. He shouldnot talk to the lawyers in such a way as tolet them think he is not hearing them out.

Mr. Causey: Do you think that over your career, judgeswere better in the earlier days than they havebeen in the past 20 years, or do you thinkthat judges have become better at judging inthe past 10 or 15 years?

Mr. Campbell: I don't know if I can make any decision offeeling that way. I think the cases havebecome much worse in a sense.

Mr. Causey: More difficult, complex?

Mr. Campbell: Yes. They have become more difficult andcomplex, but also they have become overlyburdened and I think cursed really, by aterrific abuse of the discovery process. Ithink the handling of the trial of cases whereevery witness is really testifying twice andthe way it becomes a trial, not of so much oftestimony as a trial of paper, that it hasbeen a great loss of the essence of right andwrong in a case as the result and I wish wecould seriously consider restricting thediscovery process. Judges are busy. Theydon't want to take the time to get intoarguments with the lawyers over whether or notthey are abusing the deposition process. Ithink that is the greatest curse in moderntrials.

Mr. Causey: Did you ever want to be a judge?

Mr. Campbell: I thought at one time I would like to be anappellate judge. I didn't think I had thephysical stamina to take the day-to-day grindof trial judges. In fact, the Bar Associationon two occasions recommended me for judge ofthe U.S. Court of Appeals, but I was Virginianand our Virginia leading Senator was HarryByrd. I was not a follower of Harry Byrd. Heconsidered me a wild-eyed radical or liberaland I didn't get very far.

34

Mr. Causey: So there was some political opposition to yougoing on the bench?

Mr. Campbell: Well, political or let's put it as lack of anyaffirmative support from the VirginiaSenators.

Mr. Causey: Well, you were such a vigorous and successfultrial lawyer and I am interested to hear yousay you didn't want to be a trial judge, butan appellate judge. Did you enjoy in yourpractice appellate work more than trial work?

Mr. Campbell: Oh, yes. I enjoyed appellate work I thinkmore than trial work.

Mr. Causey: Why is that?

Mr. Campbell: I loved appearing before a bench having threejudges and having really analyzed the casevery well, and being able to engage in acolloquy with the court. I was quitesuccessful in that field. I think in onesense I was better at that than I was at jurytrial. I enjoyed jury trial, but I enjoyedbatting the law around, if I might say, withthe appellate judges more than I did arguingthe facts before a jury.

Mr. Causey: Well, let me ask you about some appellatejudges that you have appeared before in yourcareer and if you could share with us some ofyour recollections about these people. Tellus what kinds of people they were and what itwas like to be before them as a lawyer.Charles H. Robb served on the United StatesCourt of Appeals from 1906 to 1937. Do youremember Judge Robb?

Mr. Campbell: I remember Judge Robb. I don't remember toomuch about him. I have appeared before him.He was a rather small man.

Mr. Causey: Small in size?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, small in size. My impression of JudgeRobb was that he was not outstanding, but aresponsible and predictable judge and a goodone. He was very courteous on the bench andlistened to those who argued before him. Idon't think I was before him more than acouple of times.

35

Mr. Causey: Was Roger Robb his son?

Mr. Campbell: I thought about that coming in this morningand I think he was. Roger was my very goodand very close friend and he, Roger, enjoyedbeing on the bench very much.

Mr. Causey: It may in fact be the only criminal case thatI was appointed to represent the defendantbefore the Court of Appeals. It was a case inwhich Judge Roger Robb was the presiding judgeand I remember going into the argumentthinking that there was no way I was going toconvince him to reverse the conviction giventhe record that we had, but my distinctrecollection of that argument was howcourteous he was to me and how attentive hewas during the argument and I really enjoyedappearing before him. He was a good friend ofyours, Roger Robb?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, Roger and I were good friends for manyyears. He was a practicing lawyer for a longtime before he was appointed judge. Iremember we were on opposite sides of a caseinvolving the Washington Baseball Club. I wasrepresenting a substantial minoritystockholder in that case and he was, Ithought, being abused by Mr. Griffith, themajority stockholder who had moved the teamfrom Washington out to Minneapolis. I wastaking a deposition over there in Minneapolisone day in the winter and Roger had gone outto Minneapolis the day before to confer withhis own clients out there. I remember thatnight before I was going to Minneapolis hecalled me up. We were on opposite sides butnot very bitter enemies because he said, "Ed,if you are coming out here to Minneapolis, youget your long underclothes and bring them outbecause this is the coldest weather I haveever seen." Well, I didn't get very far withMr. Griffith in the depositions. Roger wasalso involved in the atomic energy claimsagainst Lindenthal I think his name was, whowas accused as one of the brilliant people inthe development of the atomic bomb and Rogerhad been appointed to investigate him becausehe was accused of collaboration with theRussians. The Russians, of course, were ourpartners in the War but we did not want todisclose any atomic materials to them. I knowthat Roger reached the conclusion that there

36

was something to that. Just as Alger Hiss wasalleged to have been involved, Roger Robbreached the conclusion that Lindenthal wasguilty of loose handling of the relationshipwith Russia, but he was a good judge. Verycourteous man.

Mr. Causey: Another judge that served on the U.S. Court of

Appeals in the '20s and '30s when you were inyour first few years of practice was a JosiahVan Orsdel.

Mr. Campbell: I can't tell you anything about him and Iappeared before him once and was wellreceived. He had a handlebar moustache. Iremember that!

Mr. Causey: How about Judge Justin Miller, do you rememberJudge Miller?

Mr. Campbell: Only in a general way. Judge Miller had noparticular personality. He was, I thought, alittle more conservative in his application ofthe law than I would like, but he was a fineman as far as I know.

Mr. Causey: Now, I believe you knew Judge Fred Vinsonwell.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, I did.

Mr. Causey: What are your recollections about Judge Vinsonbefore he went to the Supreme Court?

Mr. Campbell: Well, I was active in the Bar Association evenat that time and I remember Judge Vinson atthe annual outings of the Bar, playing pokerwith me, and he was a very outgoing man.

Mr. Causey: Was he a good poker player?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, he was a poker player, not veryhigh-stake poker at some of these outings.Judge Vinson had been in Congress and I thinkhe was chairman of the Naval Affairs Committeebut he was a naval expert in Congress. Wewere good friends and his son, Fred, Jr., wentto college with my son, Ed, Jr. and we saweach other on Bar occasions. I didn't have any

37

other social relationship with him, but Iadmired his integrity. I never thought he wasa brilliant jurist but he was alright. Ibelieve he was Secretary of the Treasury, too,at one time.

Mr. Causey: I'm not sure about that, he may have been.Judge Henry Edgerton served on the Court ofAppeals for a long time; from 1938 to 1970. Doyou remember him?

Mr. Campbell: Oh, yes. I remember him well. I think he hadbeen a professor, I'm not sure. He was ascholar. He was in the period when the U.S.Court of Appeals was pretty well dividedideologically between the ultra liberals inthe civil rights movements and theconservatives. He was definitely in theliberal block. Once I recall I had been onthe Committee of the Bar proposing somesuggestions with respect to Rules of CivilProcedure and the Appellate Rules in the U.S.Court of Appeals, too. I remember, withrespect to the latter, having appeared beforethe Court of Appeals and made suggestions withrespect to them, and they were, I thought,rather quietly and not too favorably receivedby the Court, but Judge Edgerton came to meafterwards and said we are going to have toget some resolution passed by the Court ofappreciation for the work of this Committeeand I always thought that was a nice gestureat least on his part. I got along very wellwith him. He was a good judge.

Mr. Causey: Judge Barrett Prettyman was the Chief Judge ofthe Court of Appeals.

Mr. Campbell: Judge Prettyman was an outstanding man and anoutstanding judge. He had been CorporationCounsel in the District of Columbia and Iwould call Judge Prettyman, well almostideally he met my concept of what a judgeshould be in his relationship with the Bar andhis ability to separate the forest from thetrees.

Mr. Causey: Do you remember Judge Fahy?

38

Mr. Campbell: Yes. Judge Fahy had been the United StatesDistrict Attorney in the District of Columbia.He was well thought of as a judge. I don'thave a feeling that he was a masterful judge,but he was alright.

Mr. Causey: Wasn't he the Solicitor General of the UnitedStates before he went on the Court of Appeals?

Mr. Campbell: I don't know the answer to that question.

Mr. Causey: I believe he was. Thurman Arnold -- do youremember being in front of Judge Arnold?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, he was during my very early days. Bigman. When he spoke, his voice reverberatedthrough the courtroom. He had a sort ofdominating position in the court, that is,when he spoke you listened. I have no basisfrom personal experience to pass on his legalability, only his manner.

Mr. Causey: Let me ask you about another Judge. JudgeJames Proctor. Do you remember being beforeJudge Proctor?

Mr. Campbell: Judge Proctor I knew well and I think I onlyhad one case before him. He had been on theUnited States District Court in the Districtof Columbia and was a thoughtful, notbrilliant, but a thoughtful, thoroughlyadequate judge. He was promoted to the U.S.Court of Appeals. I don't think I everappeared before him when he was on that bench.

Mr. Causey: Let me ask you, Ed, your recollections of somemore recent judges that are on the U.S. Courtof Appeals and let me begin with Judge SkellyWright. What recollections do you have ofJudge Wright who was quite a legal judge?

Mr. Campbell: Judge Skelly Wright had come up to the U.S.Court of Appeals from the U.S. District Courtin New Orleans where he had been a mainstay insupport of the Department of Justice's effortsto enforce the bound against the Board ofEducation ruling of the Supreme Court indesegregating the schools and had won forhimself great unpopularity because of his

39

rigid determination that the ruling of theSupreme Court would be enforced despite thevigorous opposition of the New Orleanspopulace. Judge Wright, I appeared before hima number times, was, along with Chief JudgeBazelon, of the U.S. Court of Appeals, anextremely liberal judge. Now I use the wordliberal in relating to criminal cases and theright of the defendant in criminal cases. Ithought, and I think the Bar generallythought, that Skelly Wright and Chief JudgeBazelon, went way overboard in reversingconvictions on almost any grounds. In fact,lawyers used to think that those two judgesjust had a feeling that people ought only beconvicted. You will find over a period ofalmost a generation there that they, in manycases, dominated the court in regard toextreme application of civil rights on behalfof the defendant.

Mr. Causey: So their opinions were unpopular with many

members of the Bar?

Mr. Campbell: Oh, yes. Another relationship I had withJudge Wright was in a case which I had triedbefore him where he accepted an assignment toact as Special District Judge. Tom Jackson,my partner from Jackson & Campbell, got me tojoin him in a case on appeal from a decisionin which Judge Wright had acted as trial judgeinvolving the desegregation of schools in theDistrict of Columbia. Schools had beendesegregated, but a claim was made that therewas not adequate allocation of whites andblacks in each school district and that theblacks were discriminated against in handlingof individual classes. Judge Wright had heardthat case and had written a 50-page opinion,in which we thought in effect he had assumedthe position of school superintendent and hadput the court in a position of really managingthe details of almost every aspect of theoperation of schools, far beyond what wasintended in Brown v. Board of Education. We,Jackson and I, appealed that decision to theU.S. Court of Appeals. As I recall, we didnot get too far in the Court of Appealsbecause Bazelon was on the Court, but we didget, I think, some modification of the rules.

Mr. Causey: So the Supreme Court did hear that case?

40

Mr. Campbell: No. This was the Court of Appeals. I rememberBurger dissented in that opinion.

Mr. Causey: Did you know Warren Burger?

Mr. Campbell: Oh, I knew him very well.

Mr. Causey: What are your recollections about ChiefJustice Burger?

Mr. Campbell: Justice Burger is, of course, still living.We were good friends. Justice Burger, when hewas on the Court of Appeals, was helpful withsome of the work that we were trying to do inthe Bar Association. He is an able man. Heis possibly a little more conservative than Iwould be. He does not have the ability to getalong at all times with fellow judges or theadministration, but he was a good judge.

Mr. Causey: There is a lot of talk and concern now aboutthe personal relationships among the judges onthe Court of Appeals and a lot of people saythat the Court today is very fractured andjudges view things very personally. Did youthink that was the case back in the '50s and'60s when you have Judge Burger and JudgeMacKinnon on the conservative side and JudgeBazelon and Judge Wright on the liberal side?

Mr. Campbell: There was a definite fracturing there in theU.S. Court of Appeals and I think ratherunusually so because frankly, Judge Bazelonand Judge Wright were ideologized and theywere not in the mainstream. I think it istrue that everywhere in modern civilization inAmerica we find fracturing and intolerance,much less collegiality than there had been.

Mr. Causey: Why do you think that there is moredisagreement and contention between judges andpeople in general in society today than therewere 20, 30, 40 years ago?

Mr. Campbell: I think it is simply typical of therelationships in all areas of society. I thinkthe nation as a whole is becoming completelyfractured and the sense of community today isbeing destroyed by various factors which havemade people more and more unhappy andindividualistic. I can go into it but it goes

41

far beyond what I've said and I would say thatfrom what I hear, and only from what I hear,that the Supreme Court under Judge Rehnquist,with whom I disagree with on many, many legalmatters, has become much more collegial thanit had been in the past, with the exception ofone or two judges who don't work very wellwith the others.

Mr. Causey: We have talked about a number of judges on theCourt of Appeals who served from the '20s and'30s up through the '70s and you argued beforethe Court of Appeals during all of thoseyears. Was there a difference in arguing infront of the U.S. Court of Appeals earlier inyour career than later in your career? Werethe judges different? Were the procedures inwhich they handled cases different? Did younotice a change?

Mr. Campbell: Well, I think they got a little moremeticulous in the timing and in theapplication of rules with respect to briefsand that sort of thing. Other than that, Idon't think there is any real difference.

Mr. Causey: Did you have a particular judge that youenjoyed being in front of on the appeals courtmore than other judges?

Mr. Campbell: Well, if I picked one out, I'd pick JudgePrettyman. But, I was always well-treated inthat court.

Mr. Causey: Let me ask you some questions about some ofthe judges who served on the District Courtduring your career. We have talked aboutJudge Bailey already. How about Judge AdolphHoehling, who served on the District Court inthe time during your early career in the '20s?Do you remember being before him?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, I remember him quite well. He wasuniversally considered by the Bar as the bestjudge in my early days on the District Court.He was a thoughtful judge who embodied theattributes of courtesy, listening, cuttingthrough trash and getting to the heart ofthings. He was good.

Mr. Causey: Some other judges that served in your earlyyears during your career would be Judge

42

Frederick Siddons. Do you remember JudgeSiddons?

Mr. Campbell: Judge Siddons was a sissy. I don't know howto express it.

Mr. Causey: Well, you did just now.

Mr. Campbell: Alright. He was a sissy. He was a maleeffeminate. If there ever was a judge who sawthe trees and lost the forest, it was JudgeSiddons, in my opinion. I think I've saidenough.

Mr. Causey: We might redact that portion from the tape.Judge Dickinson Letts served on the DistrictCourt for over 30 years. Do you rememberJudge Letts?

Mr. Campbell: Oh, I remember him very well.

Mr. Causey: What do you recall about him?

Mr. Campbell: Judge Letts and I were good friends. JudgeLetts was liked by the Bar. I think he hadbeen a congressman from Iowa, I'm not sure,but from some state in the middle west. JudgeLetts listened well in trial cases; didn'tinterrupt and didn't comment too much; casesprincipally took a little longer to try beforeJudge Letts because he was quite patient inhandling it. As I remember, he chewed, Ithought it was string, but it may have beengum or something else, but Judge Letts waswell-known for so-called aphorisms. He wasgiven credit for the statement, though I doubtif he deserves it, "I may be in error, but I'mnever in doubt." Anyhow, he was a good judge.

Mr. Causey: How about Judge Goldsborough? Whatrecollections do you have of Judge AlanGoldsborough?

Mr. Campbell: Judge Goldsborough, as I stated in my lastinterview, went to sleep in the trial of acase that I had once, in the middle ofquestioning of a witness before a jury. Doyou want me to refer to that again?

Mr. Causey: No, I think we have it.

43

Mr. Campbell: He also, however, was a courageous judge.During the Second World War when Lewis, thehead of the Mine Workers Union, refused tocomply with an Order that he had entered to goback to work, the miners had been on strikeduring the war and he ordered them back towork, he didn't hesitate to impose a twomillion dollar fine against the mine workers.He had guts.

Mr. Causey: Now, going back to what you said about JudgeLetts' statement, "I may be in error, but I'mnever in doubt." I heard a luncheon addressedby Judge Mikva yesterday and he was recallinghis days when he was a clerk in the SupremeCourt and he said there was a saying that wentaround the Court at that time which was,"We're not last because we are right, but weare right because we are last." I thoughtthat was a good statement with the SupremeCourt. Well, some of the other district courtjudges that sat for a number of years that youwere before would have been Judge Laws. Whatdo you recall about Judge Laws?

Mr. Campbell: Before his appointment to the bench, he hadbeen an active practicing lawyer here inWashington and had been president of the BarAssociation.

Mr. Causey: How could he not be with a name like that?

Mr. Campbell: This is a story that is apparently true.While he was president of the Bar Association,he went before the Attorney General torecommend that certain people that the Bar hadrecommended be considered for appointment ofthe U.S. District bench. The Attorney Generalwas so taken with him that he recommended tothe President the appointment of Laws to thebench and he was appointed to the bench whenhe was president of the D.C. Bar Association.He was a good judge, well-thought of and wellliked by the Bar.

Mr. Causey: He served for about 20 years, I think.

Mr. Campbell: Yes, that is true.

44

Mr. Causey: Another judge that served for about 20 yearswas Judge James Morris. Remember JudgeMorris?

Mr. Campbell: Yes, I think he came up from the Department ofJustice. Judge Morris was a quiet judge, notimposing in manner, fairly small physically.I did not think him brilliant, but he was agood judge.

Mr. Causey: And Judge David Pine was on the District Courtfor 30 years. Do you remember Judge Pine?

Mr. Campbell: Judge Pine had been an active practitioner inthe District of Columbia and a very goodfriend. Judge Pine was appointed to the benchand became most famous when he enjoined thePresident of the U.S. from taking possessionof the steel mills in Pittsburgh. He waswell-thought of at the Bar and I maintained aclose relationship with him when I waspresident of the Association in the '60s. Inthe '60s after he had died the Bar arranged tohave a portrait made of him and it hung in thecourthouse. My friend, Francis _______, acolleague at the Bar, who was also a goodfriend of Judge Pine, said I've got somebody Ithink would do a good portrait. Well, theportrait was made and I had the responsibilityof unveiling it at a public session in theU.S. courthouse. I had seen it before and Iwon't comment on it for the moment. But, whenthe portrait was unveiled for the people, itwas hardly recognizable. Nobody knew that itwas Judge Pine. This was something the Barhad arranged to have done and hung in thecourthouse and his family was there and it wasone of the truly embarrassing moments of mylife.

Mr. Causey: Nobody looked at it before the ceremony?

Mr. Campbell: No, I looked at it, I had seen it, but I hadto go through with it, that's the trouble.Some of us finally said this won't do and wehad another one made off the record.

Mr. Causey: What happened to the first portrait?

45

Mr. Campbell: The first portrait went into the basement andfrom my understanding it may have gone outinto the trash. That was quite an experience.Judge Pine was an able, good judge.

Mr. Causey: Judge Matthew McGuire served on the DistrictCourt for almost 50 years.

Mr. Campbell: Judge McGuire came from the Department ofJustice. He had ability, but he was one ofthe chief exponents of the sin that I referredto earlier. Judge McGuire would interrupt andtell you his opinion just about three minutesafter you started to argue a case before himand in that sense I think he was a very poorjudge.

Mr. Causey: Now, the judge I am going to ask you about nowI know you have some very definite opinionsabout, recollections about this person. So,I'm going to ask you to share with us as muchas you can about this judge. Judge Holtzhoffwas quite a personality in the District ofColumbia and a very well-known judge. What doyou remember about Judge Holtzhoff?

Mr. Campbell: Judge Holtzhoff was a very able, knowledgeablejudge. He was also a judge with more quirksand side opinions than any man I ever knew.Judge Holtzhoff's possibly most embarrassingmoment for him in his career was when he trieda damage suit and the jury came back with, Iforget the amount of the verdict, which JudgeHoltzhoff quite promptly proceeded to setaside as being excessive and ordered a newtrial. Judge Holtzhoff then tried the caseover again and the jury came back with averdict twice as high as the original one.Judge Holtzhoff felt he had to swallow hispride and upheld the second verdict which wastwice the one that he had previously setaside. Judge Holtzhoff had favorites, nodoubt about that.

Mr. Causey: Favorites among members of the Bar?

Mr. Campbell: Members of the Bar. I felt that unconsciously,and I'm sure it was unconsciously on his part,he favored them. Primarily because they

46

argued the cases before him in the way heliked to hear them. That was completelyunconscious on his part, I'm sure. Ipersonally somehow was one of his favoritesand I got along very well with him. Iremember one day in court when I was waitingfor a case that I had to come on, I wassitting within the Bar with my legs crossed,in a very dignified manner and I tried to bedignified within the Bar and certainly beforeJudge Holtzhoff, who was meticulous infeelings of what the bar should do and howthey should treat the court. I was sittingthere and all at once Judge Holtzhoff turnedover and spoke to his marshal who was sittingbeside him, he didn't look at me, but themarshal came up to me and said quietly, "Mr.Campbell, Judge Holtzhoff does not want anyonesitting in the Bar with his legs crossed."So, I immediately, with some embarrassment,straightened out my legs and put my kneestogether in proper fashion and sat that waythe rest of the day. But, that was typical ofthe way Judge Holtzhoff would run his court.Judge Holtzhoff could be very harsh andintolerant in his manner in dealing withpeople that didn't know how to stroke him,shall I say. But, I got along very well withhim and on the whole, he was a very ablejudge.

Mr. Causey: Judge Curran. Did you have a lot of

opportunity to appear before Judge Curran?

Mr. Campbell: I don't think I ever appeared before him in atrial of a case. Judge Curran had been aDistrict Attorney. I don't think he was knownto have a reputation of being an outstandingjudge, but I think he was competent.

Mr. Causey: Now, if I'm not mistaken, I think the firstwoman to sit on the U.S. District Court forthe District of Columbia was Burnita SheltonMatthews? Do you remember Judge Matthews?

Mr. Campbell: Oh yes, I remember her very well and I triedand won one of my most difficult cases beforeher. I think she was really a very able judgeand had quite a judicial manner and was alwayscourteous with counsel. I think she was oneof our best judges during the period sheserved.

47

Mr. Causey: Can you describe her judicial manner?

Mr. Campbell: Her manner was always quiet. She alwayslistened well. When she spoke her ruling shewould say "the court is of the opinion thatthis is the fact," or "the court finds thisfact." Her manner on the bench was highlycompetent. You got an impression of the factthat she knew what she was about andincidently, I don't think that I mentionedbefore, but one of the important attributes ofa judge I think is not only courtesy butfirmness. When a judge renders an opinion, itshould be in a form that "this is it." Incourts, cases are rarely black and white; theyare nearly always gray. Yet when a judgedecides it, the judge has to often call iteither black or white. It is important fromthe point of view of the judicial system thatwhen the judge does make such a ruling, thatit sounds like it is the law and it is theright ruling. The people who hear it mustfeel that the judge finds that as a definiteopinion on his or her part. Judge Matthewshad that ability.

Mr. Causey: What recollections do you have of Judge HowardCorcoran?

Mr. Campbell: I never appeared before Judge Corcoran. Hewas, of course, a political appointmentbecause of his relationship with thePresident; President Roosevelt I think it was.But, I think he had the reputation of doing apretty good job.

Mr. Causey: Apart from judges, who were some of thelawyers that you tried cases with during yourcareer that stand out as being memorable toyou over the years?

Mr. Campbell: Well, I would certainly name Roger Robb inthat group. I would name my partner, TomJackson, in that group.

Mr. Causey: We will talk about Tom Jackson in the nextsession and we've talked a little bit aboutRoger Robb.

Mr. Campbell: There are several lawyers in the firm of Hogan& Hartson that I have found quite able.

48

Mr. Causey: Let me ask you about a couple of the lawyersfrom Hogan & Hartson. Did you know FrankHogan?

Mr. Campbell: Yes.

Mr. Causey: What do you remember about Frank Hogan?

Mr. Campbell: I met Frank Hogan when Mr. Douglas and he wereboth trying cases in connection with theTeapot Dome scandal during the Hardingadministration. The cases were tried in thelate '20s. Frank Hogan had pince-nez glasses.He was a little less than normal height, buthe had a very vivid personality. When he wastrying the case, he spoke with quietconviction if I can express it that way,before both the judge and the jury, and he hasthat very superior ability to make you thinkwhen you're hearing, "Oh, yes, there is noquestion that this is the law or these are thefacts." Those are the attributes which takethe legal genius into another class from thatof the average lawyer. A very able person.He and Mr. Douglas were rivals in trial workand both of them had very substantial egos. Irecall one situation I mentioned to Mariahere, with respect to a brief in which Mr.Hogan and Mr. Douglas represented the sameclient, an oil company, in a brief before theSupreme Court of the U.S. Both offices hadworked on that brief. I had just been in theoffice with Mr. Douglas for a couple years atthat time and there were about six names to goon the brief, the ones that had worked on itin our firm and the ones that had worked on itin Mr. Hogan's firm. You may not realize it,but it became a very important matter todetermine the order of the signatures on theoutside of that brief. Should Mr. Douglas goon it first or Mr. Hogan go first? I wascharged with arguing with some of theunderlings in the office on the subject.

Mr. Causey: How was it decided?

Mr. Campbell: Well, it was decided and I thought Mr. Hoganwon the argument hands down. Mr. Douglas'name went on the brief first, but after allthe others, Frank Hogan was at the bottom. Hesaid, "That's where I'll go." So, Frank Hogan

49

was the boss of the whole thing and nobodycould think that Frank Hogan was a young clerkin the office so Frank Hogan said, "I'll justput my name after all the rest of them."That's how it was decided. I thought Mr.Hogan won that argument and I think Mr.Douglas felt embarrassed.

Mr. Causey: Did you know the Hartson of Hogan & Hartson?

Mr. Campbell: Oh, yes.

Mr. Causey: What was his first name, do you remember?

Mr. Campbell: Sure I do, but you caught me though. He was afairly tall man. He was not a trial lawyer,but he was the office manager and a very ableman. All of those firms were quite small; Idon't think you had more than a half a dozenat the time.

Mr. Causey: In recent years, one of the more well-knownlawyers to come out of Hogan & Hartson wasEdward Bennett Williams. What recollectionsdo you have of working with him?

Mr. Campbell: Well, Edward Bennett Williams was not supposedto be anything special when he left Hogan &Hartson, but he apparently was beginning toget some business at the time and decided hewould just go out. Of course, I knew him andwatched him try some cases. He is undoubtedlya very brilliant lawyer. He had a very rarephotographic memory and that was one of hisgreat attributes. There has been a bookwritten about him and I don't think I can addmuch to this.

Mr. Causey: Did you try cases with him?

Mr. Campbell: No.

Mr. Causey: Ed, let me go back for a minute and ask youabout one of the other judges that served onthe Court of Appeals. Judge Tamm served from1948 to 1969 and he had a major impact on theCourt of Appeals during those years. Whatrecollections do you have of Judge Tamm?

Mr. Campbell: Judge Tamm was appointed to the U.S. DistrictCourt over the strenuous opposition of the BarAssociation of the District of Columbia. Mypartner at that time, Hugh Obear, was asked

50

by the Bar Association to testify inopposition to his confirmation by the Senate.Hugh did so testify and the grounds of hisopposition was that Judge Tamm had absolutelyno experience in the practice of law. JudgeTamm was a law school graduate, he was amember of the Bar, he had a job in theDepartment of Justice, but he had neverpracticed law. That was the ground of theopposition. Judge Tamm was confirmed, went onthe bench, learned at the expense of the Bar.A change from being what I considered to bequite an incompetent judge without any realknowledge of procedures in trial of a case, tobeing quite a good judge and before the end ofhis term and time in the U.S. District Court,he had become a thoroughly accepted andacceptable judge on the District Court. So,he was also I think on the U.S. Court ofAppeals. He was a little on the conservativewing of the Court, but well thought of. Ithink he learned at the expense of the Bar,but he became a good judge.

Mr. Causey: Another judge I want to ask you about on theDistrict Court who served for about 40 yearswas Judge Keech. Do you remember Judge Keech?

Mr. Campbell: I would say Judge Keech comes in the categoryof being definitely a high-class, upper groupjudge. He had been a practicing attorney hereand was one who listened, was alert, and hadthe qualities of a good judge and exhibited itthrough his career.

Mr. Causey: During the course of your long career, werethere any judges that lawyers just absolutelydid not like to be before?

Mr. Campbell: I would put Judge Bailey that way. I wouldput Judge Siddons that way in the early days.I would say that at least half the members ofthe Bar felt that way about Judge Holtzhoff,though I told you I had a different opinionwith respect to that.

Mr. Causey: Could members of the Bar, 30 and 40 years ago,do things and pull strings to get away fromjudges they didn't want to be in front of?

51

Mr. Campbell: Well, I'm sure they did, but not veryeffectively. When I was first a member of theBar, it was hit and miss who tried your case.You understand what I mean, there was nospecial assignment of a case to a single judgeat the beginning. You might have motionsheard by one judge and the case tried byanother.

Mr. Causey: A general assignment.

Mr. Campbell: Yes. A judge takes his next case on thecalendar which he may afford some opportunityfor that.

Mr. Causey: We have covered a lot of judges and somelawyers that you worked with during yourcareer. I want to thank you again for givingus the time. This has been very informativeand I know will be an excellent addition tothe collection that the Historical Society isputting together. So, thank you very much Ed.Good seeing you again.

Mr. Campbell: My pleasure.

A1

INDEX

Alan Kay case, 26-27Alexander, Harry T., 9Alexandria, Virginia, 26American Bar Association, 7American Civil Liberties Union, 11-12Arnold, Thurman, 38Attorney General’s Office, 7-8, 43Bailey, Thomas Jennings, 32, 50Bar Association of the District of Columbia, 6-11, 36, 40, 43, 44-45

Functions of, 7-10Integration of, 8-9Judicial candidates, screening of, 7-8, 49-50Library, maintenance of, 7Unified Bar, establishment of, 10-11see also under Campbell, Edmund D., Career (legal)

Bar exam, in District of Columbia, 2Bazelon, David L., 23, 39, 40Benn, James T., 24-26Benn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 22 T.C.M. (CCH) 707 (1963), 26Benn v. Sankin, 410 F.2d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1969); cert. den., 396 U.S. 1041 (1970) (Garfield v.

Sankin case), 24-26Bennett, Robert, 10Board of Supervisors (Fairfax County, Virginia), 26Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), 24, 38-39Burger, Chief Justice, 23, 40Byrd, Harry, Jr., 16-17, 33Campbell, Edmund D.:

Career (legal):Bar Association of the District of Columbia, 36, 40

committee service, 6-11Civil Rights Committee, 8-9Committee of Nine, 7-8Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, committee to propose, 6, 37judicial oversight committee, 9-10

A2

delegate to the American Bar Association, 7Director, 7President, 7, 9, 44-45

committee service:District of Columbia Bar Association, establishment of, 10-11U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Committee on Admissions

and Grievances, 10Virginia Bar Relations Committee, 10see also Campbell, Edmund D., Career (legal), Bar Association of the District of

Columbia, committee serviceDistrict of Columbia bar exam, 2Douglas, Obear & Douglas, 2-5, 6, 48-49

becomes partner in, 4first assignment, 3first case, 3-4size of firm, 3

Jackson & Campbell, partner in, 22-23, 39notable cases:

Alan Kay case, 26-27Ecclesiastical Court case, 27-28Garfield v. Sankin case (Benn v. Sankin, 410 F.2d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1969); cert. den.,

396 U.S. 1041 (1970)), 24-26Giese v. United States, 323 U.S. 682 (1945), 12-13Hatch Act case (Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority v. United States Civil

Service Commission, 437 F.2d 1346 (4th Cir. 1971); cert. den., 403 U.S. 936(1971)), 24

Hobson v. Hansen, 408 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1969), 22-23, 39-40Howard v. Brown, 21-22, 42Howard v. Capital Transit Co., 163 F.2d 910 (D.C. Cir. 1947), 13-14Hughes v. WMCA, Inc., 379 U.S. 694 (1965), 18James v. Almond, 170 F.Supp. 331 (E.D. Va. 1959); dismissal under Rule 14, 359

U.S. 1006 (1959), 16-17, 24James v. Duckworth, 267 F.2d 224 (4th Cir. 1959); cert. den., 361 U.S. 835 (1959),

16-17, 24Mann v. Davis, 377 U.S. 678 (1964), 18-20, 24Mayflower Hotel receivership cases, 4-5Murphy v. Washington American League Base Ball Club, Inc., 324 F.2d 394

(D.C. Cir. 1963), 20-21, 35Parmelee v. United States, 113 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1940), 11-12Pearl Harbor hearings, 15

A3

Russian spy case, 23-24Sims v. Reynolds, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), 18

Supreme Court, arguments before, 13, 18-20trial anecdotes, 12-14, 21-22, 46

Career (pre-legal), 2Early life and family history, 1Education:

Harvard University, 2Washington & Lee University, 1-2

Hobbies:baseball, 21poker, 36

Judgeship, recommended for, 33-34Legal philosophies:

appellate work, pleasure in, 34discovery, abuse of, 33judges:

aphorisms, 42, 43avoided by lawyers, 50favorite, 41judicial favoritism, 45-46qualities of, 32-33, 47quality of judges in the District of Columbia Circuit, 28-29, 33relations between, 40-41

lawyers: essential trial skills, 31judges avoided by, 50memorable, 47-49

U.S. Army service, 1-2Campbell, Edmund D., Jr., 36Carlton Hotel, 4Civil procedure

see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, adoption of and Pleading, common lawCivil Rights Committee, 8-9Clinton, William Jefferson, 10Committee of Nine, 7-8Corcoran, Howard F., 47Corporation Counsel for the District of Columbia, 37Cox, Archibald, 19Cuba, 3

A4

Curran, Edward M., 46Delaware, 21Depression, the, 4-5Desegregation, 8-9, 16-17, 22-23, 24, 38-40District of Columbia:

Bar exam, 2Corporation Counsel, 37Desegregation of schools, 22-23, 38-40Georgetown, 3-4

District of Columbia Bar Association, 10-11District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 10Douglas, Charles A., 2-3, 48-49Douglas, Justice, 13Douglas, Obear & Douglas, 2-5, 6, 48-49Dulany, Benjamin W., 24-27

Opinion of EDC, 30Ecclesiastical Court case:

EDC serves as assessor, 27EDC subpoenas presiding bishop, 27-28

Edgerton, Henry W., 37Episcopal Church, 27-28F.H. Smith Company, 5Fahy, Charles, 37-38Fairfax County, Virginia, 23, 26-27Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, adoption of, 5-6, 37Fortas, Justice, 9Garfield, Joseph A., 24-26Garfield Apartments, 24-26Garfield v. Sankin case (Benn v. Sankin, 410 F.2d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1969); cert. den.,

396 U.S. 1041 (1970)), 24-26Gasch, Oliver, 10, 29Georgetown, 3-4Giese v. United States, 323 U.S. 682 (1945), 12-13

Justice Douglas leaves Court during argument, 13Goldsborough, T. Alan, 21-22, 42-43Griffith, Clark, 20-21, 35Griffith Stadium, 21Halsey Stewart, 4Hammill, Park & Sanders, 25Harding, Warren G., 48

A5

Hartson, Nelson T., 49Harvard University, 2Hatch Act case (Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority v. United States Civil Service

Commission, 437 F.2d 1346 (4th Cir. 1971); cert. den., 403 U.S. 936 (1971)), 24Havana, Cuba, 3Hiss, Alger, 36Hobson v. Hansen, 408 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1969), 22-23, 39-40Hoehling, Adolph A., Jr., 41Hoffman, Walter E., 16Hogan, Frank, 48-49Hogan & Hartson, 47-49Holtzoff, Alexander, 25, 50

Embarrassing case, 45Practices favoritism, 45-46

Howard v. Brown:Background of case, 21-22Judge falls asleep during trial, 22, 42

Howard v. Capital Transit Co., 13-14Hughes v. WMCA, Inc., 379 U.S. 694 (1965), 18Jackson, Stonewall, 1Jackson, Thomas, 22-23, 39, 47Jackson & Campbell, 22-23, 39James v. Almond, 170 F.Supp. 331 (E.D. Va. 1959); dismissal under Rule 14, 359 U.S. 1006

(1959):Injunction to reopen schools, 17“Massive resistance” laws, 16-17, 24Senator Byrd’s resolution to abolish public school system, 17

James v. Duckworth, 267 F.2d 224 (4th Cir. 1959); cert. den., 361 U.S. 835 (1959), 16-17, 24Jones, William B., 24-26Justice Department, U.S., 38-39, 45

Attorney General’s Office, 7-8, 43Solicitor General, 19, 38U.S. Attorney’s Office, 38

Kay, Alan, 26-27Keech, Richmond B., 50Kentucky, 2Kern, John W., 26Kimmel, Admiral, 15Laws, Bolitha J., 43Lee, Robert E., 1, 17

A6

Letts, F. Dickinson, 42, 43Lewis, John L., 2, 21, 43Lewis, Oren R., 23-24Lexington, Virginia, 1Lindenthal, Mr., 35-36Louisville, Kentucky, 2MacKinnon, George E., 40Mann v. Davis, 377 U.S. 678 (1964), 18-20, 24

Background of case, 18Plaintiff’s argument, 19Solicitor General’s argument, 19Supreme Court opinion, authorship, 20

“Massive resistance” laws, 16-17, 24Matthews, Burnita Shelton, 46-47Mayflower Hotel receivership cases, 4-5McGuire, Matthew F., 45Mexico, 3Mikva, Abner J., 43Miller, Justin, 36Minneapolis, Minnesota, 20-21, 35Morris, James W., 44Municipal Court of the District of Columbia, 3-4

Alexander, Harry T., 9Location of, 4

Murphy, H. Gabriel, 20Murphy v. Washington American League Base Ball Club, Inc., 324 F.2d 394 (D.C. Cir. 1963),

20-21, 35“Negro Question”, 8-9New York Times, 28Norfolk, Virginia, 16-17, 26Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority v. United States Civil Service Commission,

437 F.2d 1346 (4th Cir. 1971); cert. den., 403 U.S. 936 (1971) (Hatch Act case), 24Obear, Hugh, 6, 15, 49-50Obscenity laws, 11-12“One-man, one vote” cases, 18-20, 24Parmelee v. United States, 113 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1940), 11-12

Dissenting judge, 12Pearl Harbor hearings, 15Pine, David A., 12-13

Portrait of, 44-45

A7

Pleading, common law, 5-6Portrait, of Judge Pine, 44-45Prettyman, E. Barrett, 37, 41Pritchard, Ed, 23-24Probate Office (circa 1920), 5Proctor, James M., 38Register of Wills Office (circa 1920), 5Rehnquist, Chief Justice, 40-41Rhyne, Charlie, 9Robb, Charles H., 34-35Robb, Roger, 21, 35-36, 47Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 13, 47Russia, 23-24, 35-36Russian spy case, 23-24Schools, desegregation of, 16-17, 22-23, 24, 38-40Segregation, 8-9, 17

see also Desegregation and Schools, desegregation ofSelective Service Act (Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, September 16, 1940, c.720,

54 Stat. 885), 12-13Selective Service Committee, 12-13Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, September 16, 1940, c.720, 54 Stat. 885, 12-13Sheraton Park Hotel, 4Siddons, Frederick L., 42, 50Sims v. Reynolds, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), 18Solicitor General, 19, 38South Carolina, 2Standard Oil of New Jersey, 3Stark, Admiral, 15Supreme Court, U.S., 43, 48

Cases:Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), 24, 38-39Giese v. United States, 323 U.S. 682 (1945), 12-13Hughes v. WMCA, Inc., 379 U.S. 694 (1965), 18Mann v. Davis, 377 U.S. 678 (1964), 18-20, 24Sims v. Reynolds, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), 18

Justices:Burger, 23, 40Douglas, 13Fortas, 9Rehnquist, 40-41

A8

Vinson, 12, 36-37Warren, 20White, 20

Justices, relations between, 40-41Tamm, Edward Allen, 49-50

Opposition to appointment to federal bench, 49-50Tampico, Mexico, 3Teapot Dome scandal, 48U.S. Army, 1-2U.S. Attorney’s Office, 38U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit:

Cases:Garfield v. Sankin case (Benn v. Sankin, 410 F.2d 1060 (D.C. Cir. 1969); cert. den.,

396 U.S. 1041 (1970)), 24-26Hobson v. Hansen, 408 F.2d 175 (D.C. Cir. 1969), 22-23, 39-40Howard v. Capital Transit Co., 163 F.2d 910 (D.C. Cir. 1947), 13-14Murphy v. Washington American League Base Ball Club, Inc., 324 F.2d 394 (D.C. Cir.

1963), 20-21, 35Parmelee v. United States, 113 F.2d 729 (D.C. Cir. 1940), 11-12

Circa 1920, 6Committee on Admissions and Grievances, 10 Comparison between judges of 1920s and today, 41Judges:

Arnold, Thurman, 38Bazelon, David L., 23, 39, 40Burger, Warren E., 23, 40Edgerton, Henry W., 37Fahy, Charles, 37-38MacKinnon, George E., 40Mikva, Abner J., 43Miller, Justin, 36Prettyman, E. Barrett, 37, 41Proctor, James M., 38Robb, Charles H., 34-35Robb, Roger, 21, 35-36, 47Tamm, Edward Allen, 49-50Van Orsdel, Josiah A., 36Vinson, Frederick M., 12, 36-37Wright, J. Skelly, 22-23, 38-40

Judges, relations between, 37, 40-41

A9

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit:Hatch Act case (Northern Virginia Regional Park Authority v. United States Civil Service

Commission, 437 F.2d 1346 (4th Cir. 1971); cert. den., 403 U.S. 936 (1971)), 24James v. Duckworth, 267 F.2d 224 (4th Cir. 1959); cert. den., 361 U.S. 835 (1959),

16-17, 24U.S. Courthouse, 6U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

Assignments, in early days, 28-29, 50-51Circa 1920:

common law pleading in, 5-6description of, 5-6

Howard v. Brown, 21-22, 42Judges:

Bailey, Thomas Jennings, 32, 50Corcoran, Howard F., 47Curran, Edward M., 46Gasch, Oliver, 10, 29Goldsborough, T. Alan, 21-22, 42-43Hoehling, Adolph A., Jr., 41Holtzoff, Alexander, 25, 45-46, 50Jones, William B., 24-26Keech, Richmond B., 50Laws, Bolitha J., 43Letts, F. Dickinson, 42, 43Matthews, Burnita Shelton, 46-47McGuire, Matthew F., 45Morris, James W., 44Pine, David A., 12-13, 44-45Proctor, James M., 38Siddons, Frederick L., 42, 50Tamm, Edward Allen, 49-50

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia:Cases:

Alan Kay case, 26-27James v. Almond, 170 F.Supp. 331 (E.D. Va. 1959); dismissal under Rule 14,

359 U.S. 1006 (1959), 16-17, 24Russian spy case, 23-24

Judges:Hoffman, Walter E., 16Lewis, Oren R., 23-24

A10

U.S. Tax Court:Benn v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 22 T.C.M. (CCH) 707 (1963), 26Kern, John W., 26

Unified Bar, 10-11United Mine Workers, 2, 21, 43Van Orsdel, Josiah A., 36Vinson, Chief Justice, 12, 36-37Vinson, Frederick, Jr., 36Virginia:

Alexandria, 26Desegregation of schools, 16-17, 24Fairfax County, 23, 26-27House of Delegates, 18-20Lexington, 1“Massive resistance” laws, 16-17, 24Norfolk, 16-17, 26“One-man, one-vote” cases, 18-20, 24Senate, 18-20

Virginia Bar Relations Committee, 10Walsh, Lawrence, 8Wardman, Harry, 4-5Wardman Park Hotel, 4-5Warren, Chief Justice, 20Washington & Lee University, 1-2Washington Senators, 20-21, 35Wendt, Father, 27-28White, Justice, 20Williams, Edward Bennett, 9, 49Wilmington, Delaware, 21World War I, 1-2World War II, 12-13, 15, 21, 43Wright, J. Skelly, 22-23, 38-40