Brother Leo

Monks? double-check your results with another legal research resource

2009-07-04T23:36:00.000-07:00

world wide web press

AltLaw, the free legal search engine

Enter a case name, citation, or key words and phrases:

* About This Site
* Case Coverage
* Browse All Cases
* Advanced Search
* Boolean Search

BRAM v. UNITED STATES.

United States Supreme Court

December 13, 1897

42 L.Ed. 568; 168 U.S. 532; 18 S.Ct. 183

[Syllabus from pages 532-534 intentionally omitted]

Asa P. French and James E. Cotter, for plaintiff in error.

Asst. Atty. Gen. Boyd, for the United States.

Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.
1

This writ of error is prosecuted to a verdict and sentence thereon, by which the plaintiff was found guilty of murder, and condemned to suffer death. The homicide was committed on board the American ship Herbert Fuller, While on the high seas, bound from Boston to a port in South America. The accused was the first officer of the ship, and the deceased, of whose murder he was convicted, was the master of the vessel. The bill of exceptions, after stating the sailing of the vessel from Boston on the 2d of July, 1896, with a cargo of lumber, gives a general summary of the facts leading up to and surrounding the homicide, as follows:
2

'She had on board a captain, Charles I. Nash; Bram, the defendant; a second mate, August W. Blomberg; a steward; and six seamen; also the captain's wife, Laura A. Nash, and one passenger, Lester H. Monks.
3

'The vessel proceeded on her course towards her port of destination until the night between July 13th and July 14th. On that night, at 12 o'clock, the second mate's watch was relieved by the mate's watch, of which Bram, the defendant, was the officer in charge. The captain, his wife, the passenger, Monks, and the first mate and the second mate, all lived in the after-cabin, occupying separate rooms. * * * The crew and the steward slept forward in the forward house.
4

'When the watch was changed at midnight, Bram, the defendant, took the deck, the seamen Loheac and Perdok went forward on the lookout, and Charles Brown (otherwise called Justus Leopold Westerberg, his true name) took the wheel, where it was his duty to remain till two o'clock, at about which time he was relieved by Loheac. The second mate went to his room and the seamen of his watch to their quarters at twelve midnight, and there was no evidence that any of them or the steward appeared again till daylight.
5

'The passenger, Monks, who occupied a room on the starboard side of the cabin, between the chart room where the captain slept and the room on the forward starboard side where Mrs. Nash slept, with doors opening from the passenger's room into both the chart room used by the captain as his room and that of Mrs. Nash, was aroused not far from two o'clock (the exact time is not known, as he says) by a scream, and by another sound, characterized by him as a gurgling sound. He arose, went to the captain § room, and found the captain's cot overturned, and the captain lying on the floor by it. He spoke, but got no answer; put his hand on the captain's body, and found it damp or wet. He then went to Mrs. Nash's room; did not see her, but saw dark spots on her bedding, and suspected something wrong. He went on deck, and called the mate, the defendant, telling him the captain was killed. Both went below, took down the lantern hanging in the main cabin, burning dimly, turned it up, and went through the captain's room to the passenger's room, and the passenger there put on a shirt and pantaloons. They then both returned to the deck, the mate on the way stopping a brief time in his own room. Bram and Monks remained talking of deck till about daybreak, when the steward was called, and told what had happened. Up to this time no call had been made for the second mate, nor had any one visited his room. Later it was found that Captain Nash, his wife, and Blomberg, the second mate, were all dead, each with several wounds upon the head, apparently given with a sharp instrument, like an ax, penetrating the skull, and into the substance of the brain; and the second mate lying on his back, with his feet crossed, in his berth; Mrs. Nash in her bed, in her room, and at the back side of the bed; and Captain Nash in his room, as already stated.
6

'The whole crew was called at or about daylight, and were informed of the deaths.
7

'The bodies were removed from the cabin, and placed in the jolly boat, and the boat was towed astern to Halifax. The cabin was then locked, Bram taking the keys, and it remained locked till the vessel reached Halifax.
8

'At first, after the discovery of the murders, there was some hesitancy as to where the vessel should go. At the defendant's suggestion, she was headed to go to Cavenne, in French Guiana; but the plan was changed, and she steered for Halifax, Nova Scotia, where she arrived July 21st, and was taken possession of by the local authorities, at the instance of the consul general of the United States.
9

'At first, after the discovery of the murders, Bram, on whom had devolved the command of the ship, made Brown chief mate and Loheac second mate.
10

'No blood or spots of blood were ever discovered on the person or the clothing of any person on board, nor did anything direct suspicion to any one.
11

'In a day or two, suspicion having been excited in respect to the seaman Brown, the crew, under the supervision of Bram, seized him, he not resisting, and put him in irons. All the while the officers and seamen remained on deck. Bram navigated the ship until Sunday before they reached Halifax, on Tuesday, and after the land of Nova Scotia was in sight, when, Brown having stated to his shipmates, or some of them, that he saw into the cabin through a window in the after-part and on the starboard side of the house, and saw Bram, the mate, kill the captain, in consequence of this statement of Brown, the crew, led by the steward, suddenly overpowered the mate, and put him in irons, he making no resistance, but declaring his innocence. Bram and Brown were both carried into Halifax in irons.'
12

The bill of exceptions further states that, when the ship arrived at Halifax, the accused and Brown were held in custody by the chief of police at that place, and that, while in such custody, the accused was taken from prison to the office of a detective, and there questioned, under circumstances to be hereafter stated. Subsequently to this occurrence at Halifax, all the officers, the crew, and the passenger were examined before the American consul, and gave their statements, which were reduced to writing and sworn to. They were thereafter, at the request of the American consul, sent to Boston, where the accused was indicted for the murder of Nash, the captain, of Mrs. Nash, and the second mate, Blomberg. The trial and the conviction now under review related to the first of these charges. The errors which are here assigned as grounds for reversal are more han 60 in number, and are classified by the counsel for the accused as follows: (a) Questions raised preliminary to the trial; (b) questions raised during the trial; (c) questions raised in connection with two motions for a new trial.
13

We first examine the error relied on which seems to us deserving of the most serious consideration. During the trial, a detective, by whom the accused was questioned while at Halifax, was placed upon the stand as a witness for the prosecution, for the purpose of testifying to the conversation had between himself and the accused at Halifax, at the time and place already stated. What took place between the accused and the detective at the time of the conversation, and what occurred when the witness was tendered in order to prove the confession, is thus stated in the bill of exceptions:
14

'Nicholas Power, of Halifax, called by the government, testified that he was connected with the police department of Halifax, and had been for thirty-two years, and for the last fifteen years of that time as a detective officer; that after the arrival of the Herbert Fuller at Halifax, in consequence of a conversation with Charles Brown, he made an examination of Bram, the defendant, in the witness' office, in the city hall at Halifax, when no one was present besides Bram and the witness. The witness testified that no threats were made in any way to Bram, nor any inducements held out to him.
15

'The witness was then asked: 'What did you say to him and he to you?'
16

'To this the defendant's counsel objected. The defendant's counsel was permitted to cross-examine the witness before the court ruled upon the objection, and the witness stated that the conversation took place in his office, where he had caused the defendant, Bram, to be brought by a police officer; that up to that time the defendant had been in the custody of the police authorities of Halifax, in the custody of the superintendent of police, John O'Sullivan; that the witness asked that the defendant should be brought to his office for the purpose of interviewing him; that at his office he stripped the defendant, and examined his clothing, but not his pockets; that he told the defendant to submit to an examination, and that he searched him; that the defendant was then in custody, and did everything the witness directed him to do; that the witness was then a police officer, acting in his official capacity; that all this took place before the defendant had been examined before the United States consul; and that the witness did not know that the local authorities had at that time taken any action, but that the defendant was held for the United States,—for the consul general of the United States.
17

'The witness answered questions by the court as follows:
18

"You say there was no inducement to him in the way of promise or expectation of advantage?
19

"A. Not any, your honor.
20

"Q. Held out?
21

"A. Not any, your honor.
22

"Q. Nor anything said in the way of suggestion to him that he might suffer if he did not,—that it might be worse for him?
23

"A. No, sir; not any.
24

"Q. So far as you were concerned, it was entirely voluntary?
25

"A. Voluntary, indeed.
26

"Q. No influence on your part exerted to persuade him on way or the other?
27

"A. None whatever, sir; none whatever.'
28

'The defendant then renewed his objection to the question what conversation had taken place between Bram and the witness, for the following reasons: That, at the time, the defendant was in the custody of the chief of police at Halifax; that the witness, in an official capacity, directed the police authorities to bring the defendant as a prisioner to his private office, and there proceeded to take extraordinary liberties with him. He stripped him. The defendant understood that he was a prisoner, and he obeyed every order and direction that the witness gave. Under these circumstances, the counsel submitted that no statement made by the defendant while so held in custody, and his rights interfered with to the extent describe , was a free and voluntary statement, and no statement as made by him bearing upon this issue was competent.
29

'The objection was overruled, and the defendant excepted on all the grounds above stated, and the exceptions were allowed.
30

'The witness answered as follows:
31

"When Mr. Bram came into my office, I said to him: 'Bram, we are trying to unravel this horrible mystery.' I said: 'Your position is rather an awkward one. I have had Brown in this office, and he made a statement that he saw you do the murder.' He said: 'He could not have seen me. Where was he?' I said: 'He states he was at the wheel.' 'Well,' he said, 'he could not see me from there.' I said: 'Now, look here, Bram, I am satisfied that you killed the captain from all I have heard from Mr. Brown. But,' I said, 'some of us here think you could not have done all that crime alone. If you had an accomplice, you should say so, and not have the blame of this horrible crime on your own shoulders.' He said: 'Well, I think, and many others on board the ship think, that Brown is the murderer; but I don't know anything about it.' He was rather short in his replies.
32

"Q. Anything further said by either of you?
33

"A. No; there was nothing further said on that occasion.' 'The direct examination of this witness was limited to the interview between the witness and the defendant, Bram.
34

'On cross-examination of the witness Power, he testified that, at the time of the above-stated examination, he took possession of a pair of suspenders belonging to the defendant, and kept the same in his office until the prisoners were coming to Boston (the whole crew and the passenger were imprisoned at Halifax, and sent as prisoners to Boston), when he handed them over to the Halifax superintendent of police, and they were sent to Boston, with other property of the defendant.
35

'Defendant's counsel, upon the ground of showing interest on the part of the witness, then asked: 'What other articles belonging to the defendant did you take possession of at that time?'
36

'This line of inquiry was objected to by the district attorney, on the ground that the matter was not opened on the direct examination, and the defendant could call the witness as part of his case if he saw fit. The court excluded the inquiry, ruling that it was not proper cross-examination, and did not tend to show interest, and the defendant duly excepted, and the exception was allowed.'
37

The contention is that the foregoing conversation, between the detective and the accused, was competent only as a confession by him made; that it was offered as such; and that it was erroneously admitted, as it was not shown to have been voluntary. The question thus presented was manifestly covered by the exception which was taken at the trial. When it was proposed to examine the detective officer as to the conversation had by him with the accused, objection was duly made. The court thereupon allowed the officer to be examined and cross-examined as to the circumstances attending the conversation which it was proposed to offer as a confession. When this examination was concluded, the accused renewed his objection, and his exception to the admissibility of the conversation was allowed, and regularly noted. The witness then proceeded to give the conversation. To say that under these circumstances the objection which was twice presented and regularly allowed should have been renewed at the termination of the testimony of the witness would be pushing to an unreasonable length the salutary rule which requires that exceptions be taken at the trial to rulings which are considered erroneous, and the legality of which are thereafter to be questioned on error. There can be no doubt that the manner in which the exception was allowed and noted fully called attention to the fact that the admission of the conversation was objected to because it was not voluntary, and the overruling of this objection is the matter now assigned as error here. Indeed, in the argument at b r no contention was made as to the sufficiency and regularity of the exception. It is manifest that the sole ground upon which the proof of the conversation was tendered was that it was a confession, as this was the only conceivable hypothesis upon which it could have been legally admitted to the jury. It is also clear that, in determining whether the proper foundation was laid for its admission, we are not concerned with how far the confession tended to prove guilt. Having been offered as a confession, and being admissible only because of that fact, a consideration of the measure of proof which resulted from it does not arise in determining its admissibility. If found to have been illegally admitted, reversible error will result, since the prosecution cannot, on the one hand, offer evidence to prove guilt, and which by the very offer is vouched for as tending to that end, and on the other hand, for the purpose of avoiding the consequence of the error caused by its wrongful admission, be heard to assert that the matter offered as a confession was not prejudicial, because it did not tend to prove guilt. The principle on the subject is thus stated in a note to section 219 of Greenleaf on Evidence: 'The rule excludes not only direct confessions, but any other declaration tending to implicate the prisoner in the crime charged, even though, in terms, it is an accusation of another or a refusal to confess. Rex v. Tyler, 1 Car. & P. 129; Rex v. Enoch, 5 Car. & P. 539. See further, as to the object of the rule, Rex v. Court, 7 Car. & P. 486, per Littledale, J.; People v. Ward, 15 Wend. 231.' Nor from the fact that in Wilson v. U. S., 162 U. S. 621, 16 Sup. Ct. 895, mention was made of the circumstance that the statement of the accused was a mere denial of guilt, accompanied with exculpatory explanations, does the decision in that case conflict with the principle we have just stated. The ruling there made that error to the prejudice of the accused did not arise from the admission of the statement there considered was based, not alone upon the nature of the statement, but upon 'the evidence of its voluntary character, the absence of any threat, compulsion, or inducement, or assertion or indication of fear, or even of such influence as the administration of an oath has been supposed to exert.' 162 U. S. 624, 16 Sup. Ct. 900.
38

The contradiction involved in the assertion that the statement of an accused tended to prove guilt, and therefore was admissible, and then, after procuring its admission, claiming that it did not tend to prove guilt, and could not therefore have been prejudicial, has been well stated by the supreme court of North Carolina (State v. Rorie [1876] 74 N. C. 148):
39

'But the state says this was a denial of guilt, and not a confession. It was a declaration which the state used to procure a to prove guilt, and therefore was admissible, say the declaration did not prejudice the prisoner's case. Why introduce it at all unless it was to lay a foundation for the prosecution? The use which was made of the prisoner's statement precludes the state from saying that it was not used to his prejudice.'
40

In criminal trials, in the courts of the United States, wherever a question arises whether a confession is incompetent because not voluntary, the issue is controlled by that portion of the fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States commanding that no person 'shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.' The legal principle by which the admissibility of the confession of an accused person is to be determined is expressed in the text-books.
41

In 3 Russ. Crimes (6th Ed.) 478, it is stated as follows:
42

'But a confession, in order to be admissible, must be free and voluntary; that is, must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence. * * * A confession can never be received in evidence where the pr soner has been influenced by any threat or promise; for the law cannot measure the force of the influence used, or decide upon its effect upon the mind of the prisoner, and therefore excludes the declaration if any degree of influence has been exerted.'
43

And this summary of the law is in harmony with the doctrine as expressed by other writers, although the form in which they couch its statement may be different. 1 Greenl. Ev. (15th Ed.) § 219; Whart. Cr. Ev. (9th Ed.) § 631; 2 Tayl. Ev. (9th Ed.) § 872; 1 Bish. New Cr. Proc. § 1217, par. 4.
44

These writers but express the result of a multitude of American and English cases, which will be found collected by the authors and editors either in the text or in notes, especially in the ninth edition of Taylor, second volume, tenth chapter, and the American notes, following page 588, where a very full reference is made to decided cases. The statement of the rule is also in entire accord with the decisions of this court on the subject. Hopt v. Utah (1883) 110 U. S. 574, 4 Sup. Ct. 202; Sparf v. U. S. (1895) 156 U. S. 51, 55, 15 Sup. Ct. 273; Pierce v. U. S. (1896) 160 U. S. 355, 16 Sup. Ct. 321; and Wilson v. U. S. (1896) 162 U. S. 613, 16 Sup. Ct. 895.
45

A brief consideration of the reasons which gave rise to the adoption of the fifth amendment, of the wrongs which it was intended to prevent, and of the safeguards which it was its purpose unalterably to secure, will make it clear that the generic language of the amendment was but a crystalization the amendment was but a crystallization when the amendment was adopted, and since expressed in the text writers and expounded by the adjudications, and hence that the statements on the subject by the text writers and adjudications but formulate the conceptions and commands of the amendment itself. In Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616, 6 Sup. Ct. 524, attention was called to the intimate relation existing between the provision of the fifth amendment securing one accused against being compelled to testify against himself, and those of the fourth amendment protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures; and it was in that case demonstrated that both of these amendments contemplated perpetuating, in their full efficacy, by means of a constitutional provision, principles of humanity and civil liberty which had been secured in the mother country only after years of struggle, so as to implant them in our institutions in the fullness of their integrity, free from the possibilities of future legislative change. In commenting on the same subject in Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 596, 16 Sup. Ct. 647, the court, speaking through Mr. Justice Brown, said:
46

'The maxim, 'Nemo tenetur seipsum accusare,' had its origin in a protest against the inquisitorial and manifestly unjust methods of interrogating accused persons, which has long obtained in the continental system, and, until the expulsion of the Stuarts from the British throne, in 1688, and the erection of additional barriers for the protection of the people against the exercise of arbitrary power, was not uncommon even in England. While the admissions or confessions of the prisoner, when voluntarily and freely made, have always ranked high in the scale of incriminating evidence, if an accused person be asked to explain his apparent connection with a crime under investigation, the ease with which the questions put to him may assume an inquisitorial character, the temptation to press the witness unduly, to browbeat him if he be timid or reluctant, to push him into a corner, and to entrap him into fatal contradictions, which is so painfully evident in many of the earlier state trials, notably in those of Sir Nicholas Throckmorton and Udal, the Puritan minister, made the system so odious as to give rise to a demand for its total abolition. The change in the English criminal procedure in that particular seems to be founded upon no statute and no judicial opinion, but upon a general and silent acquiescence of the courts in a popular demand. But, however adopted, it has beco e firmly imbedded in English as well as in American jurisprudence. So deeply did the iniquities of the ancient system impress themselves upon the minds of the American colonists that the states, with one accord, made a denial of the right to question an accused person a part of their fundamental law; so that a maxim, which in England was a mere rule of evidence, became clothed in this country with the impregnability of a constitutional enactment.'
47

There can be no doubt that long prior to our independence the doctrine that one accused of crime could not be compelled to testify against himself had reached its full development in the common law, was there considered as resting on the law of nature, and was imbedded in that system as one of its great and distinguishing attributes.
48

In Burrowes v. High Commission Court (1616) Bulst. 49, Lord Coke makes reference to two decisions of the courts of common law as early as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, wherein it was decided that the right of a party not to be compelled to accuse himself could not be violated by the ecclesiastical courts. Whatever, after that date, may have been the departure in practice from this principle of the common law (Tayl. Ev. § 886), certain it is that, without a statute so commanding, in Felton's Case (1628) 3 How. State Tr. 371, the judges unanimously resolved, on the question being submitted to them by the king, that 'no such punishment as torture by the rack was known or allowed by our law.'
49

Lord Hale died December 25, 1676. In the first volume of his Pleas of the Crown (1st Ed. p. 1736), treating of the subject of confessions in cases of treason, it is said, at page 304:
50

'That the confession before one of the privy council or a justice of the peace being voluntarily made, without torture, is sufficient as to the indictment on trial to satisfy the statute, and it is not necessary that it be a confession in court; but the confession is sufficient if made before him that hath power to take an examination.'
51

In the second volume, at page 225, it is said:
52

'When the prisoner is arraigned, and demanded what he saith to the indictment, either he confesseth the indictment, or pleads to it, or stands mute, and will not answer.
53

'The confession is either simple, or relative in order to the attainment of some other advantage.
54

'That which I call a simple confession is, where the defendant, upon hearing of his indictment, without any other respect, confesseth it, this is a conviction; but it is usual for the court, especially if it be out of clergy, to advise the party to plead and put himself upon his trial, and not presently to record his confession, but to admit him to plead. 27 Assiz. 40.
55

'If it be but an extrajudicial confession, tho it be in court, as where the prisoner freely tells the fact, and demands the opinion of the court whether it be felony, tho upon the fact thus shown it appear to be felony, the court will not record his confession, but admit him to plead to the felony 'Not guilty.' 22 Assiz. 71, and Stamf. P. C. lib. 2, c. 51, fol. 142b.'
56

In chapter 38 of volume 2, at page 284, after referring to the power of justices of the peace and coroners, under the statutes of Philip and Mary, to take examinations of accused persons, but not upon oath, and that the same might be read in evidence on the trial of the prisoner, it is said:
57

'But then (1) oath must be made either by the justice or coroner that took them, or the clerk that wrote them; that they are the true substance of what the informer gave in upon oath, and what the prisoner confessed upon his examination.
58

'(2) As to the examination of the prisoner, it must be testified that he did it freely, without any menace or undue terror imposed upon him; for I have known the prisoner disown his confession upon his examination, and hath sometimes been acquitted against such his confession. * * *'
59

Gilbert, in his treatise on Evidence (2d Ed., published in 1760), says, at page 139:
60

'* * * But, the , this confession must be voluntary, and without compulsion; for our law in this differs from the civil law; that it will not force any man to accuse himself; and in this we do certainly follow the law of nature, which commands every man to endeavor his own preservation; and therefore pain and force may compel men to confess what is not the truth of facts, and consequently such extorted confessions are not to be depended on.'
61

In Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown (6th Ed., by Leach, published in 1787, bk. 2, c. 31) it is said:
62

'Sec. 2. * * * And where a person upon his arraignment actually confesses he is guilty, or unadvisedly discloses the special manner of the fact, supposing that it doth not amount to felony where it doth, yet the judges, upon probable circumstances, that such confession may proceed from fear, menace, or duress, or from weakness or ignorance, may refuse to record such confession, and suffer the party to plead not guilty.'
63

In section 3, c. 46, it is stated that examinations by the common law before a secretary of state or other magistrate for treason or other crimes not within the statutes of Philip and Mary, and also the confession of the defendant himself in discourse with private persons, might be given in evidence against the party confessing. A note (2) to this section, presumably inserted by the editor (see note to Gilham's Case, 1 Moody, 194, 195), reads as follows:
64

'The human mind, under the pressure of calamity, is easily seduced, and is liable, in the alarm of danger, to acknowledge indiscriminately a falsehood or a truth, as different agitations may prevail. A confession, therefore, whether made upon an official examination or in discourse with private persons, which is obtained from a defendant, either by the flattery of hope, or by the impressions of fear, however slightly the emotions may be implanted (vide O. B. 1786, p. 387), is not admissible evidence; for the law will not suffer a prisoner to be made the deluded instrument of his own conviction.'
65

Although the English reports, prior to the separation, are almost devoid of decisions applying the principles stated by Lord Hale, Hawkins, and Gilbert, both the opinion of Lord Mansfield in Rex v. Rudd (1775) Cowp. 333, and that of Mr. Justice Wilson, some years after the separation, in Lambe's Case (1791) 2 Leach (4th Ed.) 552, make it certain that the rule as stated by Hawkins, Gilbert, and Hale was considered in the English courts as no longer open to question, and as one of the fundamental principles of the common law. Looking at the doctrine as thus established, it would seem plainly to be deducible that as the principle from which, under the law of nature, it was held that one accused could not be compelled to testify against himself, was in its essence comprehensive enough to exclude all manifestations of compulsion, whether arising from torture or from moral causes, the rule formulating the principle with logical accuracy came to be so stated as to embrace all cases of compulsion which were covered by the doctrine. As the facts by which compulsion might manifest itself, whether physical or moral, would be necessarily ever different, the measure by which the involuntary nature of the confession was to be ascertained was stated in the rule, not by the changing causes, but by their resultant effect upon the mind, that is, hope or fear,—so that, however diverse might be the facts, the test of whether the confession as voluntary would be uniform,—that is, would be ascertained by the condition of mind which the causes ordinarily operated to create. The well-settled nature of the rule in England at the time of the adoption of the constitution and of the fifth amendment, and the intimate knowledge had by the framers of the principles of civil liberty which had become a part of the common law, aptly explain the conciseness of the language of that amendment. And the accuracy with which the doctrine as to confessions as now formulated embodies the rule existing at c mmon law, and imbedded in the fifth amendment, was noticed by this court in Wilson v. U. S., supra, where, after referring to the criteria of hope and fear, speaking through Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, it was said: 'In short, the true test of admissibility is that the confession is made freely, voluntarily, and without compulsion or inducement of any sort.' 162 U. S. 623, 16 Sup. Ct. 899.
66

In approaching the adjudicated cases for the purpose of endeavoring to deduce from them what quantum of proof, in a case presented, is adequate to create, by the operation of hope or fear, an involuntary condition of the mind, the difficulty encountered is that all the decided cases necessarily rest upon the state of facts which existed in the particular case, and therefore furnish no certain criterion, since the conclusion that a given state of fact was adequate to have produced an involuntary confession does not establish that the same result has been created by a different, although somewhat similar, condition of fact. Indeed, the embarrassment which comes from the varying state of fact considered in the decided cases has given rise to the statement that there was no general rule of law by which the admissibility of a confession could be determined, but that the courts had left the rule to be evolved from the facts of each particular case. 2 Tayl. Ev. § 8722. And, again, it has been said that so great was the perplexity resulting from an attempt to reconcile the authorities that it was manifest that not only must each case solely depend upon its own facts, but that even the legal rule to be applied was involved in obscurity and confusion. Green v. State, 88 Ga. 516, 15 S. E. 10; State v. Patterson, 73 Mo. 695, 705; State v. Matthews, 66 N. C. 106, 109.
67

The first of these statements but expresses the thought that whether a confession was voluntary was primarily one of fact, and therefore every case must depend upon its own proof. The second is obviously a misconception, for, however great may be the divergence between the facts decided in previous cases and those presented in any given case, no doubt or obscurity can arise as to the rule itself, since it is found in the text of the constitution. Much of the confusion which has resulted from the effort to deduce from the adjudged cases what would be a sufficient quantum of proof to show that a confession was or was not voluntary has arisen from a misconception of the subject to which the proof must address itself. The rule is not that, in order to render a statement admissible, the proof must be adequate to establish that the particular communications contained in a statement were voluntarily made, but it must be sufficient to establish that the making of the statement was voluntary; that is to say, that, from causes which the law treats as legally sufficient to engender in the mind of the accused hope or fear in respect to the crime charged, the accused was not involuntarily impelled to make a statement when but for the improper influences he would have remained silent. With this understanding of the rule, we come to a consideration of the authorities.
68

By statutes enacted early in the second half of the sixteenth century (1 & 2 Phil. & M. c. 13, and 2 & 3 Phil. & M. c. 10), justices of the peace were directed, on accusations of felony, to 'take the examination of the said prisoner and information of them that bring him.' In 1655, the judges directed that the examination of prisoners should be without oath (Kel. 2), and the reason of this rule, Starkie, Ev. (2d Ed. p. 29), says, was that an examination under oath 'would be a species of duress, and a violation of the maxim that no one is bound to criminate himself.' The ruling of the judges in this regard was recognized in the statute of 7 Geo. IV. c. 64, which, although requiring 'information of witnesses' to be 'upon oath,' simply directed an 'examination' of the accused.
69

But, even where the examination was held without oath, it came to be settled by udicial decisions in England that, before such an examination could be received in evidence, it must appear that the accused was made to understand that it was optional with him to make a statement. Reg. v. Green (1833) 5 Car. & P. 322; Reg. v. Arnold (1838) 8 Car. & P. 621. The reason upon which this rule rested undoubtedly was that the mere fact of the magistrate's taking the statement, even though unaccompanied with an oath, might, unless he was cautioned, operate upon the mind of the prisoner to impel him involuntarily to speak. The judicial rule as to caution was finally embodied into positive law by the statute of 11 & 12 Vict. c. 42, where, by section 18, the magistrate was directed, after having read or caused to be read to the accused the depositions against him, to ask the accused: 'Having heard the evidence, do you wish to say anything in answer to the charge? You are not obliged to say anything unless you desire to do so, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing, and may be given in evidence against you upon your trial.'
70

The English courts were frequently called upon to determine whether language used by a magistrate when about to take the examination of one accused tended to induce in the mind of the latter such hope or fear as to lead to involuntary mental action. In Reg. v. Drew (1837) 8 Car. & P. 140, and Reg. v. Harris (1844) 1 Cox, Cr. Cas. 106, though the accused had been cautioned not to say anything to prejudice himself, the further statement, in substance, by the magistrate or his clerk, that what the prisoner said would be taken down, and 'would' be used for or against him at his trial, was held by Coleridge, J., to be equivalent to saying that what the prisoner chose to say might be used in his favor at the trial, and to be a direct inducement to make a confession, rendering the statement incompetent as evidence. Like rulings were also made in cases where similar assurances that the statement of the prisoner would be used were made to him by a police officer. Reg. v. Morton (1843) 2 Moody & R. 514, and Reg. v. Farley (1844) 1 Cox. Cr. Cas. 76.
71

In cases where statements of one accused had been made to others than the magistrate upon an examination, differences of opinion arose among the English judges as to whether a confession made to a person not in a position of authority over the accused was admissible in evidence after an inducement had been held out to the prisoner by such person. Rex v. Spencer (1837) 7 Car. & P. 776. It was finally settled, however, that the effect of inducements must be confined to those made by persons in authority (Reg. v. Taylor [1839] 8 Car. & P. 734; Reg. v. Moore [1852] 2 Denison, Cr. Cas. 522), although, in the last cited case, while former precedents were followed, the court expressed strong doubts as to the wisdom of the restriction (2 Denison, Cr. Cas. 527). There can be no question, however, that a police officer, actually or constructively in charge of one in custody on a suspicion of having committed crime, is a person in authority within the rule; and, as this is so well established, we will not consider the adjudicated cases in order to demonstrate it, but content ourselves with a reference to the statement on the subject made in 3 Russ. Crimes, at page 501.
72

Many other cases in the English reports illustrate the application of the rule excluding statements made under inducement improperly operating to influence the mind of an accused person.
73

In Rex v. Thompson (1783) 1 Leach (4th Ed.) 291, a declaration to a suspected person that, unless he gave a more satisfactory account of his connection with a stolen bank note, his interrogator would take him before a magistrate, was held equivalent to stating that it would be better to confess, and to have operated to lead the prisoner to believe that he would not be taken before a magistrate if he confessed. Baron Hotham, after commenting upon the evidence, in substance said that the prisoner was hardly a free agent at the time, as, though the langua e addressed to him scarcely amounted to a threat, it was certainly a strong invitation to the prisoner to confess, the manner in which it had been expressed rendering it more efficacious.
74

In Cass' Case (1784) 1 Leach, 293, a confession induced by the statement of the prosecutor to the accused, 'I am in great distress about my irons. If you will tell me where they are, I will be favorable to you,' was held inadmissible. Mr. Justice Gould said that the slightest hopes of mercy held out to a prisoner to induce him to disclose the fact was sufficient to invalidate a confession.
75

In the cases following, statements made by a prisoner were held inadmissible, because induced by the language set out in each case: In Rex v. Griffin (1809) Russ. & R. 151, telling the prisoner that it would be better for him to confess. In Rex v. Jones, Id. 152, the prosecutor saying to the accused that he only wanted his money, and, if the prisoner gave him that, he might go to the devil, if he pleased. In Rex v. Kingston (1830) 4 Car. & P. 387, saying to the accused: 'You are under suspicion of this, and you had better tell all you know.' In Rex. v. Enoch (1833) 5 Car. & P. 539, saying: 'You had better tell the truth, or it will lie upon you, and the man go free.' In Rex v. Mills (1833) 6 Car. & P. 146, saying: 'It is no use for you to deny it, for there is the man and boy who will swear they saw you do it.' In Sherrington's Case (1838) 2 Lewin, Cr. Cas. 123, saying: 'There is no doubt, thou wilt be found guilty: It will be better for you if you will confess.' In Rex v. Thomas (1833) 6 Car. & P. 353, saying: 'You had better split, and not suffer for all of them.' In Rex v. Simpson (1834) 1 Moody, 410, and Ryan & M. 410, repeated importunities by neighbors and relatives of the prosecutor, coupled with assurances to the suspected person that it would be a good deal worse for her if she did not, and that it would be better for her if she did confess. In Rex v. Upchurch (1836) 1 Moody, 465, saying: 'If you are guilty, do confess. It will perhaps save your neck. You will have to go to prison. If William H. [another person suspected, and whom the prisoner had charged] is found clear, the guilt will fall on you. Pray, tell me if you did it.' In Reg. v. Croydon (1846) 2 Cox, Cr. Cas. 67, saying: 'I dare say you had a hand in it. You may as well tell me all about it.' In Reg. v. Garner (1848) 1 Denison, Cr. Cas. 329, saying: 'It will be better for you to speak out.'
76

In Reg. v. Fleming (1842) Arms., M. & O. 330, statements of a police officer suspected of having committed a crime, in answer to questions propounded by his superior in office, after the latter had warned the accused to be cautious in his answers, were held inadmissible. The court said: 'The prisoner and witness being both in the police force, the prisoner, as the witness admitted, might have conceived himself bound to tell the truth; and the caution was not of that nature which should make the confession of the prisoner admissible.'
77

In the leading case of Reg. v. Baldry (1852) 2 Denison, Cr. Cas. 430, after full consideration, it was held that the declaration made to a prisoner, who had first been cautioned that what he said 'would' be used as evidence, merely imported that such statement 'might' be used, and could not have induced in the mind of the prisoner a hope of benefit sufficient to lead him to make a statement. The cases of Reg. v. Drew, Reg. v. Harris, Reg. v. Morton, and Reg. v. Farley, heretofore referred to, were held to have been erroneously decided.
78

In the course of the argument, counsel for the prisoner cited and commented upon Cass' Case, Rex v. Thomas, Sherrington's Case and Rex v. Enoch, also heretofore referred to, as illustrating the doctrine that assuring the accused that it would be better for him to speak, or other intimation given of possible benefit, would invalidate a confession thus induced. After counsel had concluded his reference to these cases, Pollock, C. B., said (page 432): 'There is no doubt as to the application of the rule in those cases, which are all familiar to the judges and to the bar.'
79

In the course of the opinion, subsequently delivered by him, Chief Baron Pollock said (page 442):
80

'A simple caution to the accused to tell the truth, if he says anything, it has been decided not to be sufficient to prevent the statement made being given in evidence; and although it may be put that, when a person is told to tell the truth, he may possibly understand that the only thing true is that he is guilty, that is not what he ought to understand. He is reminded that he need not say anything, but, if he says anything, let it be true. It has been decided that that would not prevent the statement being received in evidence, by Littledale, J., in the case of Rex v. Court, 7 Car. & P. 486, and by Rolfe, B., in a case at Gloucester, Reg. v. Holmes, 1 Car. & K. 258; but, where the admonition to speak the truth has been coupled with any expression importing that it would be better for him to do so, it has been held that the confession was not receivable, the objectionable words being that it would be better to speak the truth, because they import that it would be better for him to say something. This was decided in the case of Reg. v. Garner, 1 Denison, Cr. Cas. 329. The true distinction between the present case and a case of that kind is that it is left to the prisoner a matter of perfect indifference whether he should open his mouth or not.'
81

In Reg. v. Moore (1852) 2 Denison, Cr. Cas. 523, also decided by the court of criminal appeal, an admonition to a person suspected of crime that she 'had better speak the truth,' was held not to vitiate a subsequent confession, because not made by a person in authority. Parke, B., delivering the opinion of the judges, said, in substance (page 526), that one element in the consideration of the question whether a confession ought to be excluded was 'whether the threat or inducement was such as to be likely to influence the prisoner,' and 'that if the threat or inducement was held out, actually or constructively, by a person in authority, it cannot be received, however slight the threat or inducement.' In Reg. v. Cheverton (1862) 2 Falc. & F. 833, a statement made by a policeman to a person in his custody, that 'you had better tell all about it; it will save you trouble,' was held to operate as a threat or inducement sufficient to render what was said by the prisoner inadmissible.
82

In Reg. v. Fennell (1881) 7 Q. B. Div. 147, the court for crown cases reserved referred approvingly to the statement of the rule contained in Russell on Crimes, and, 'upon all the decided cases,' held inadmissible a statement made, induced by the prosecutor saying to the prisoner in the presence of an inspector of police: 'The inspector tells me you are making housebreaking implements. If this is so, you had better tell the truth; it may be better for you.'
83

The latest decision in England on the subject of inducement, made by the court for crown cases reserved, is Reg. v. Thompson [1893] 2 Q. B. 12. At the trial a confession was offered in evidence, which had been made by the defendant before his arrest upon the charge of having embezzled funds of a certain corporation. Objection was interposed to its reception in evidence, on the ground that it had been made under the operation of an inducement held out by the chairman of the company in a statement to a relative of the accused, intended to be and actually communicated to the latter, that 'it will be the right thing for Marcellus [the accused] to make a clean breast of it.' The evidence having been admitted, and the prisoner convicted, the question was submitted to the upper court whether the evidence of the confession was properly admitted. The opinion of the appellate court was delivered by Cave, J., and concurred in by Lord Coleridge, C. J., Hawkins, Day, and Wills, JJ. After stating and adopting the ruling of Baron Parke in Reg. v. Warringham, 2 Denison, Cr. Cas. 447, note, o the effect that it was the duty of the prosecutor to satisfy the trial judge that the confession had not been obtained by improper means, and that, where it was impossible to collect from the proof whether such was the case or not, the confession ought not to be received, the opinion referred approvingly to the declaration of Pollock, C. B., in Reg. v. Baldry, that the true ground of the exclusion of statements not voluntary was that 'it would not be safe to receive a statement made under any influence or fear.' The court then quoted the rule laid down in Russell on Crimes as being a statement of the principles which had been restated and affirmed by the Lord Chief Justice in the Fennell Case, and added:
84

'If these principles and the reasons for them are, as it seems impossible to doubt, well founded, they afford to magistrates a simple test by which the admissibility of a confession may be decided. They have to ask, is it proved affirmatively that the confession was free and voluntary? that is, was it preceded by any inducement to make a statement held out by a person in authority? If so, and the inducement has not clearly been removed before the statement was made, evidence of the statement is inadmissible.'
85

After reviewing the evidence, and holding that, under the ruling of Pollock, C. B., in the Baldry Case, it was immaterial whether the statements made by the chairman were calculated to elicit the truth, and intimating that they tended to lead the prisoner to believe that it would be better for him to say something, the opinion concluded with deciding that, 'on the broad, plain ground that it was not proved satisfactorily that the confession was free and voluntary,' the confession ought not to have been received.
86

While, as we have said, there is no question that a police officer having a prisoner in custody is a person in authority, within the rule in England, and, therefore, that any inducement by him offered, calculated to operate upon the mind of the prisoner, would render a confession as a consequence thereof inadmissible, there seems to be doubt in England whether the doctrine does not extend further, and hold that the mere fact of the interrogation of a prisoner by a police officer would per se render the confession inadmissible, because of the inducement resulting from the very nature of the authority exercised by the police officer, assimilating him in this regard to a committing or examining magistrate. 3 Russ. Crimes, p. 510, note t. In Reg. v. Johnson (1864) 15 Ir. C. L. 60, this subject was elaborately considered by the Irish court of criminal appeal, seven of the judges writing opinions, and the majority concluding, on a full consideration of the English and Irish authorities, that a policeman was not such an official as would render per se any confession elicited by his questioning the prisoner inadmissible, although the fact of his questioning became an important element in determining whether inducement resulted from the language by him used. The English authorities, however, referred to in the above note to Russell on Crimes, are later in date than Reg. v. Johnson, although they emanate from nisi prius courts, and not from appellate tribunals. Whatever be the rule in this regard in England, however, it is certain that, where a confession is elicited by the questions of a policeman, the fact of its having been so obtained, it is conceded, may be an important element in determining whether the answers of the prisoner were voluntary. The attempt on the part of a police officer to obtain a confession by interrogating has been often reproved by the English courts as unfair to the prisoner, and as approaching dangerously near to a violation of the rule protecting an accused from being compelled to testify against himself. Berriman's Case (1854) 6 Cox, Cr. Cas. 388; Cheverton's Case (1862) 2 Falc. & F. 833; Mick's Case (1863) 3 Falc. & F. 822; Reagan's Case (1867) 17 Law T. (N. S.) 325; and Reason's Case (1872) 12 Cox, Cr. Cas. 228.
87

From this rev ew it clearly appears that the rule as to confessions by an accused (leaving out of consideration the rule now followed in England restricting the effect of inducements, according as such inducements were or were not held out by persons in authority) is in England to-day what it was prior to and at the adoption of the fifth amendment, and that, while all the decided cases necessarily rest upon the state of facts which the cases considered, nevertheless the decisions as a whole afford a safe guide by which to ascertain whether in this case the confession was voluntary, since the facts here presented are strikingly like those considered in many of the English cases.
88

We come, then, to the American authorities. In this court the general rule that the confession must be free and voluntary— that is, not produced by inducements engendering either hope or fear—is settled by the authorities referred to at the outset. The facts in the particular cases decided in this court, and which have been referred to, manifested so clearly that the confessions were voluntary that no useful purpose can be subserved by analyzing them. In this court also it has been settled that the mere fact that the confession is made to a police officer, while the accused was under arrest in or out of prison, or was drawn out by his questions, does not necessarily render the confession involuntary; but, as one of the circumstances, such imprisonment or interrogation may be taken into account in determining whether or not the statements of the prisoner were voluntary. Hopt v. Utah, 110 U. S. 574, 4 Sup. Ct. 202; Sparf v. U. S., 156 U. S. 51, 55, 15 Sup. Ct. 273. And this last rule thus by this court established is also the doctrine upheld by the state decisions.
89

In the various state courts of last resort the general rule we have just referred to, that a confession must be voluntary, is generally recognized, although in Indiana there is a statute authorizing confessions obtained by inducements to be given in evidence to the jury, with all the attending circumstances, except when made under the influence of fear produced by threats, while it is also provided that a conviction cannot be had by proof of a confession made under inducement, 'without corroborating testimony.' Rev. St. Ind. 1881, § 1802 (Rev. St. 1894, § 1871). And, in the Texas Code of Procedure (article 750) it is provided that confessions shall not be used against a prisoner at his trial 'if, at the time it was made, the defendant was in jail or other place of confinement, nor where he was in custody of an officer, unless such confession be made in the voluntary statement of the accused, taken before an examining court in accordance with law; or be made voluntarily, after having been first cautioned that it may be used against him; or unless, in connection with such confession, he make statement of facts or of circumstances that are found to be true, which conduce to establish his guilt, such as the finding of secreted or stolen property, or instrument with which he states the offense was committed.' The English doctrine which restricts the operation of inducements solely to those made by one in authority has been adopted by some state courts, but disapproved of in others, as in Ohio. Spears v. State, 2 Ohio St. 583. Whether it is one which should be followed by this court in view of the express terms of the constitution need not be now considered, as it does not arise under the state of facts here presented. In some it is also held that the fact that the accused is examined on oath by a magistrate or coroner, or by a grand jury, with or without an oath, will per se exclude confessions, because of the influence presumed to arise from the authority of the examining officer or body. People v. McMahon (1857) 15 N. Y. 384, followed in People v. Mondon (1886) 103 N. Y. 211, 218, 8 N. E. 496; State v. Matthews (1872) 66 N. C. 106; Jackson v. State (1879) 56 Miss. 311, 312; State v. Clifford (1892) 86 Iowa, 550, 53 N. W. 299. T is doctrine as to examining magistrates is in some states enforced by statutes somewhat similar in character to the English statutes. 2 Tayl. Ev. § 888, note 2.
90

In some of the states it has been held that where questions are propounded to a prisoner by one having a right to ask them, and he remains silent, where from the nature of the inquiries, if innocent, reply would naturally be made, the fact of such silence may be weigned by the jury. See authorities collected in Chamberlayne's note to 2 Tayl. Ev. p. 5884, et seq.
91

Having stated the general lines upon which the American cases proceed, we will not attempt to review in detail the numerous decisions in the various courts of last resort in the several states treating of confessions in the divergent aspects in which that doctrine may have presented itself, but will content ourselves with a brief reference to a few leading and well-considered cases treating of the subject of inducements, and which are therefore apposite to the issue now considered.
92

In the following cases the language in each mentioned was held to be an inducement sufficient to exclude a confession or statement made in consequence thereof: In Kelly v. State (1882) 72 Ala. 244, saying to the prisoner: 'You have got your foot in it, and somebody else was with you. Now, if you did break open the door, the best thing you can do is to tell all about it, and to tell who was with you, and to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.' In People v. Barrie, 49 Cal. 342, saying to the accused: 'It will be better for you to make a full disclosure.' In People v. Thompson (1890) 84 Cal. 598, 605, 24 Pac. 384, 386, saying to the accused: 'I don't think the truth will hurt anybody. It will be better for you to come out and tell all you know about it, if you feel that way.' In Berry v. U. S. (1893) 2 Colo. 186, 188, 203, advising the prisoner to make full restitution, and saying: 'If you do so, it will go easy with you. It will be better for you to confess. The door of mercy is open, and that of justice closed;' and threatening to arrest the accused and expose his family if he did not confess. In State v. Bostick (1845) 4 Har. (Del.) 563, saying to one suspected of crime: 'The suspicion is general against you, and you had as well tell all about it. The prosecution will be no greater. I don't expect to do anything with you. I am going to send you home to your mother.' In Green v. State (1891) 88 Ga. 516, 15 S. E. 10, saying to the accused: 'Edmund, if you know anything, it may be best for you to tell it;' or, 'Edmund, if you know anything, go and tell it, and it may be best for you.' In Rector v. Com. (1882) 80 Ky. 468, saying to the prisoner in a case of larceny: 'It will go better with you to tell where the money is. All I want is my money, and, if you will tell me where it is, I will not prosecute you hard.' In Biscoe v. State (1887) 67 Md. 6, 8 Atl. 571, saying to the accused: 'It will be better for you to tell the truth, and have no more trouble about it.' In Com. v. Nott (1883) 135 Mass. 269, saying to the accused: 'You had better own up. I was in the place when you took it. We have got you down fine. This is not the first you have taken. We have got other things against you nearly as good as this.' In Com. v. Myers (1894) 160 Mass. 530, 36 N. E. 481, saying to the accused: 'You had better tell the truth.' In People v. Wolcott (1883) 51 Mich. 612, 17 N. W. 78, saying to the accused: 'It will be better for you to confess.' In Territory v. Underwood (1888) 8 Mont. 131, 19 Pac. 398, saying to the prisoner that it would be better to tell the prosecuting witness all about it, and that the officer thought the prosecuting witness would withdraw the prosecution, or make it as light as possible. In State v. York (1858) 37 N. H. 175, saying to one under arrest immediately before a confession: 'If you are guilty, you had better own it.' In People v. Phillips (1870) 42 N. Y. 200, saying to the prisoner: 'The best you can do is to own up. It will be better for you.' In State v. Whitfield (1874) 70 N. C. 356, saying to the accused: 'I believe you are guilty. If you are, you had better say so. If you are not, you had better say that.' In State v. Drake (1893) 113 N. C. 624, 18 S. E. 166, saying to the prisoner: 'If you are guilty, I would advise you to make an honest confession. It might be easier for you. It is plain against you.' In Vaughan v. Com. (1867) 17 Grat. 576, saying to the accused: 'You had as well fell all about it.'
93

We come, then, to a consideration of the circumstances surrounding, and the facts established to exist, in reference to the confession, in order to determine whether it was shown to have been voluntarily made. Before analyzing the statement of the police detective as to what took place between himself and the accused, it is necessary to recall the exact situation. The crime had been committed on the high seas. Brown, immediately after the homicide, had been arrested by the crew in consequence of suspicion aroused against him, and had been by them placed in irons. As the vessel came in sight of land, and was approaching Halifax, the suspicions of the crew having been also directed to Bram, he was arrested by them, and placed in irons. On reaching port, these two suspected persons were delivered to the custody of the police authorities of Halifax, and were there held in confinement, awaiting the action of the United States consul, which was to determine whether the suspicions which had caused the arrest justified the sending of one or both of the prisoners into the United States for formal charge and trial. Before this examination had taken place, the police detective caused Bram to be brought from jail to his private office; and, when there alone with the detective, he was stripped of his clothing, and either while the detective was in the act of so stripping him, or after he was denuded, the conversation offered as a confession took place. The detective repeats what he said to the prisoner, whom he had thus stripped, as follows:
94

'When Mr. Bram came into my office, I said to him: 'Bram, we are trying to unravel this horrible mystery.' I said: 'Your position is rather an awkward one. I have had Brown in this office, and he made a statement that he saw you do the murder.' He said: 'He could not have seen me. Where was he?' I said: 'He states he was at the wheel.' 'Well,' he said, 'he could not see me from there."
95

The fact, then, is that the language of the accused, which was offered in evidence as a confession, was made use of by him as a reply to the statement of the detective that Bram's co-suspect had charged him with the crime; and, although the answer was in the form of a denial, it was doubtless offered as a confession, because of an implication of guilt which it was conceived the words of the denial might be considered to mean. But the situation of the accused, and the nature of the communication made to him by the detective, necessarily overthrow any possible implication that his reply to the detective could have been the result of a purely voluntary mental action; that is to say, when all the surrounding circumstances are considered in their true relations, not only is the claim that the statement was voluntary overthrown, but the impression is irresistibly produced that it must necessarily have been the result of either hope or fear, or both, operating on the mind.
96

It cannot be doubted that, placed in the position in which the accused was when the statement was made to him that the other suspected person had charged him with crime, the result was to produce upon his mind the fear that, if he remained silent, it would be considered an admission of guilt, and therefore render certain his being committed for trial as the guilty person; and it cannot be conceived that the converse impression would not also have naturally arisen that, by denying, there was hope of removing the suspicion from himself. If this must have been the state of mind of one situated as was the prisoner when the confession was made, how, in reason, can it be said that the answer which he gave, and which was required by the situation, was wholly voluntary, and in no manner influenced by the force of hope or fear? To so conclude would be to deny the necessary relation of cause and effect. Indeed, the implication of guilt resulting from silence has been considered by some state courts of last resort, in decided cases, to which we have already made reference, as so cogent that they have held that where a person is accused of guilt, under circumstances which call upon him to make denial, the fact of his silence is competent evidence as tending to establish guilt. While it must not be considered that, by referring to these authorities, we approve them, it is yet manifest that, if learned judges have deduced the conclusion that silence is so weighty as to create an inference of guilt, it cannot, with justice, be said that the mind of one who is held in custody under suspicion of having committed a crime would not be impelled to say something when informed by one in authority that a co-suspect had declared that he had seen the person to whom the officer was addressing himself commit the offense, when otherwise he might have remained silent but for fear of the consequences which might ensue; that is to say, he would be impelled to speak either for fear that his failure to make answer would be considered against him, or in hope that, if he did reply, he would be benefited thereby. And these self-evident deductions are greatly strengthened by considering the place where the statements were made, and the conduct of the detective towards the accused. Bram had been brought from confinement to the office of the detective, and there, when alone with him, in a foreign land, while he was in the act of being stripped, or had been stripped, of his clothing, was interrogated by the officer, who was thus, while putting the questions and receiving answers thereto, exercising complete authority and control over the person he was interrogating. Although these facts may not, when isolated each from the other, be sufficient to warrant the inference that an influnece compelling a statement had been exerted; yet, when taken as a whole, in conjunction with the nature of the communication made, they give room to the strongest inference that the statements of Bram were not made by one who, in law, could be considered a free agent. To communicate to a person suspected of the commission of crime the fact that his co-suspect has stated that he has seen him commit the offense, to make this statement to him under circumstances which call imperatively for an admission or denial, and to accompany the communication with conduct which necessarily perturbs the mind and engenders confusion of thought, and then to use the denial made by the person so situated as a confession, because of the form in which the denial is made, is not only to compel the reply, but to produce the confusion of words supposed to be found in it, and then use statements thus brought into being for the conviction of the accused. A plainer violation as well of the letter as of the spirit and purpose of the constitutional immunity could scarcely be conceived of.
97

Moreover, aside from the natural result arising from the situation of the accused and the communication made to him by the detective, the conversation conveyed an express intimation rendering the confession involuntary, within the rule laid down by the authorities. What further was said by the detective? "Now, look here, Bram, I am satisfied that you killed the captain, from all I have heard from Mr. Brown. But,' I said, 'some of us here think you could not have done all that crime alone. If you had an accomplice, you should say so, and not have the blame of this horrible crime on your own shoulders." But how could the weight of the whole crime be removed from the shoulders of the prisoner as a consequence of his speaking, unless benefit as to the crime and its punish ent was to arise from his speaking? Conceding that, closely analyzed, the hope of benefit which the conversation suggested was that of the removal from the conscience of the prisoner of the merely moral weight resulting from concealment, and therefore would not be an inducement, we are to consider the import of the conversation, not from a mere abstract point of view, but by the light of the impression that it was calculated to produce on the mind of the accused, situated as he was at the time the conversation took place. Thus viewed, the weight to be removed by speaking naturally imported a suggestion of some benefit as to the crime and its punishment as arising from making a statement.
98

This is greatly fortified by a consideration of the words which preceded this language; that is, that Brown had declared he had witnessed the homicide, and that the detective had said he believed the prisoner was guilty, and had an accomplice. It, in substance, therefore, called upon the prisoner to disclose his accomplice, and might well have been understood as holding out an encouragement that, by so doing, he might at least obtain a mitigation of the punishment for the crime which otherwise would assuredly follow. As said in the passage from Russell on Crimes already quoted: 'The law cannot measure the force of the influence used, or decide upon its effect upon the mind of the prisoner, and therefore excludes the declaration if any degree of influence has been exerted.' In the case before us we find that an influence was exerted, and, as any doubt as to whether the confession was voluntary must be determined in favor of the accused, we cannot escape the conclusion that error was committed by the trial court in admitting the confession under the circumstances disclosed by the record.
99

Our conclusion that the confession was wrongfully admitted renders to unnecessary to pass on the serious question arising from the ruling of the trial court by which, in cross-examination, the accused was denied the right to ask the detective as to an article of personal property taken from the prisoner at the time the alleged confession was had. In other words, that the accused could not bring out, by way of cross-examination, everything which took place at the time of the alleged confession, but was compelled, in order to do so, to make the detective his own witness, and therefore be placed in the position where he could not impeach him. We are also, as the result of our conclusion on the subject of the confession, relieved from examining the many other assignments of error, except in so far as they present questions which are likely to arise on the new trial.
100

We will now briefly consider the alleged errors of this character.
101

By plea and supplemental plea in abatment, and by motion to quash, defendant, preliminary to the trial, attacked the sufficiency of the indictment, because one of the grand jurors was permitted to affirm, and the indictment failed to state that such juror was 'conscientiously scrupulous' of being sworn, and because the indictment recited that it was presented upon the 'oath' of the jurors, when in fact it was presented upon the oath and affirmation of the jurors. At the hearing of the pleas in abatement, it appeared that, when the grand jurors were impaneled, one of them, upon being called to be sworn, stated that he affirmed, and declined to take an oath, and, after his fellows had been regularly sworn, he was formally affirmed to the same duties specified in the oath administered to the others. It is also stated in the record, following the recital of the issuance of venires for grand and petit jurors, that:
102

'In obedience to the said order of court, and to the venires issued thereunder, the following named grand jurors attended on the 15th day of October, A. D. 1896. On that day the said grand jurors were duly impaneled as the grand jury for the October term of this court, A. D. 1896. All of said grand jurors, being impaneled aforesaid, were duly sworn, except Grand Juror William Merrill, Junior, of West Newbury, who duly affirmed, twenty-one grand jurors being in attendance.'
103

In section 1 of the Revised Statutes of the United States it is provided, among other things, that, in determining the meaning of the Revised Statutes, 'a requirement of an 'oath' shall be deemed complied with by making affirmation in judicial form.' Section 800 also provides that:
104

'Jurors to serve in the courts of the United States, in each state respectively, shall have the same qualifications, subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, and be entitled to the same exemptions, as jurors of the highest court of law in such state may have and be entitled to at the time when such jurors for service in the courts of the United States are summoned; and they shall be designated by ballot, lot, or otherwise, according to the mode of forming such juries then practiced in such state courts, so far as such may be practicable by the courts of the United States or the officers thereof. And for this purpose the said courts may, by rule or order, conform the designation and impaneling of juries in substance to the laws and usages relating to jurors in the state courts, from time to time in force in such state. This section shall not apply to juries to serve in the courts of the United States in Pennsylvania.'
105

Pub. St. Mass. 1882, c. 213, § 6, provides as follows:
106

'Sec. 6. When a person returned as grand juror is conscientiously scrupulous of taking the oath before prescribed, he shall be allowed to make affirmation, substituting the word 'affirm' instead of the word 'swear,' and also the words 'this you do under the pains and penalties of perjury,' instead of the words 'so help you God."
107

And section 3 of chapter 30 of the same statutes provides as follows (page 58):
108

'In the construction of statutes the following rules shall be observed, unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the general court or repugnant to the context of the same statute, that is to say: * * * Fourteenth. The word 'oath' shall include 'affirmation' in cases where, by law, an affirmation may be substituted for an oath.'
109

The objection that the indictment recited that it was presented 'upon the oath' of the jurors, when the fact was that it was presented upon the 'oath and affirmation' of the jurors, is without merit. Waiving a consideration of the question whether, under the provisions of the statutes to which reference has been made, the word 'oath' might not properly be construed as meaning either 'oath' or 'affirmatton,' the recital alluded to was purely formal, and, if defective, was open to amendment. The record disclosing the fact that all of the grand jurors were duly sworn except Grand Juror William Merrill, Jr., who was 'duly affirmed,' the defendant could not have been prejudiced by the form of the statement made in the indictment, and the defect, if any, was rendered harmless by the curative provisions of section 1025, Rev. St.
110

The further objection that neither in the indictment nor in the proof at the hearing of the pleas in abatement was it affirmatively stated or shown that Grand Juror Merrill, before being permitted to affirm, was proven to have possessed conscientious scruples against taking an oath, is practically concluded by the disposition made of the objection just passed upon, and is rendered nugatory by the terms of section 1025, Rev. St. Further, the mode of ascertaining the existence or nonexistence of such conscientious scruples was committed to the discretion of the officer who affirmed the juror, and such affirmation conclusively established that the officer had properly exercised his discretion. Com. v. Fisher, 7 Gray, 492; State v. Adams, 78 Me. 486.
111

The remaining assignments which we deem it proper to notice relate to the overruling of objections interposed to questions propounded to certain witnesses in the character of experts. Some of these objections were made to hypothetical questions asked a number of sailors, reciting the condition of things assumed to have been established by the evidence as existing about the time of the killing, viz. the speed of the Herbert Fuller, the condition of her sails, direction of wind, etc., and inquiry as to the effect it would have on the vessel if the wheelman had taken his hands off the wheel, and what effect would be produced by lashing the wheel under similar conditions. These questions were evidently intended to supplement the testimony of Brown, who swore that he stood with both hands on the wheel during the time between 12 and 2 o'clock, and, consequently, when the murders were committed. The questions were competent, as the testimony sought to be elicited was relevant to the issue. Aside from the testimony of Brown, the evidence against Bram was purely circumstantial, and it was clearly proper for the government to endeavor to establish, as a circumstance in the case, the fact that another person who was present in the vicinity at the time of the killing could not have committed the crime. The testimony sought to be adduced had this tendency, and the fact that it might operate indirectly to fortify the credit of such person as a witness in the cause could not affect its admissibility.
112

An objection to a question asked of a medical witness, whether, in his opinion, a man standing at the hip of a recumbent person, and striking blows on that person's head and forehead with an ax, would necessarily be spattered with or covered with some of the blood, was also properly overruled. We think the assumed facts recited in the question were warranted by the proof in the case, and that the evidence sought to be elicited from the witness was of a character justifying an expression of opinion by the witness, the jury, after all, being at liberty to give to the evidence such weight as in their judgment it was entitled to. Hopt v. Utah, 120 U. S. 430, 7 Sup. Ct. 614.
113

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to set aside the verdict and to order a new trial.
114

Mr. Justice BREWER, dissenting.
115

I dissent from the opinion and judgment in this case——
116

First, because I think the testimony was not open to objection. 'A confession, if freely and voluntarily made, is evidence of the most satisfactory character.' Hopt v. People, 110 U. S. 574, 584, 4 Sup. Ct. 202, reaffirmed in Sparf v. U. S., 156 U. S. 51, 55, 15 Sup. Ct. 273. The fact that the defendant was in custody and in irons does not destroy the competency of a confession. 'Confinement or imprisonment is not in itself sufficient to justify the exclusion of a confession, if it appears to have been voluntary, and was not obtained by putting the prisoner in fear or by promises.' Sparf v. U. S., supra. See, also, Wilson v. U. S., 462 U. S. 613-623, 16 Sup. Ct. 895.
117

The witness Power, when called, testified positively that no threats were made nor any inducements held out to Bram; and this general declaration he affirmed and reaffirmed in response to inquiries made by the court and the defendant's counsel. The court therefore properly overruled the objection at that time made to his testifying to the statements of defendant. It is not suggested that there was error in this ruling, and the fact that inducements were held out is deduced only from the testimony subsequently given by Power of the conversation between him and Bram. The first part of that conversation is as follows: 'When Mr. Bram came into my office, I said to him: 'Bram, we are trying to unravel this horrible mystery.' I said: 'Your position is rather an awkward one. I have had Brown in this office, and he made a statement that he saw you do the murder.' He said: 'He could not have seen me. Where was he?' I said: 'He states he was at the wheel.' 'Well,' he said, 'he could not see me from there." In this there is nothing which by any possibility can be tortured into a suggestion of threat or a temptation of hope. Power simply stated the obvious fact that they wer trying to unravel a horrible mystery, and the further fact that Brown had charged the defendant with the crime, and the replies of Bram were given as freely and voluntarily as it is possible to conceive.
118

It is strange to hear it even intimated that Bram up to this time was impelled by fear or allured by hope caused in the slightest degree by these statements of Power.
119

The balance of the conversation is as follows: 'I said: 'Now, look here, Bram, I am satisfied that you killed the captain from all I have heard from Mr. Brown. But,' I said, 'some of us here think you could not have done all that crime alone. If you had an accomplice, you should say so, and not have the blame of this horrible crime on your own shoulders.' He said: 'Well, I think, and many others on board the ship think, that Brown is the murderer; but I don't know anything about it.' He was rather short in his replies.' And here, it is argued, was a suggestion of a benefit,—the holding out of a hope that a full disclosure might somehow inure to his advantage. To support this contention involves a refinement of analysis which, while it may show marvelous metaphysical ability, is of little weight in practical affairs. But, even if it did carry any such improper suggestion, it was made at nearly the close of the conversation; and that this suggestion then made had a retroactive effect, and transformed the previous voluntary statements of Bram into statements made under the influence of fear or hope, is a psychological process which I am unable to comprehend. The only reply which Bram made to the question containing this supposed improper suggestion was this: 'Well, I think, and many others on board the ship think, that Brown is the murderer; but I don't know anything about it.' Can it for a moment be thought that such a reply was so significant that permitting it to go to the jury compels the putting at naught this protracted trial, and overthrowing the deliberate verdict of the 12 men who heard the evidence and condemned the defendant? With all respect to my brethren who are of a different opinion, I can but think that such a contention is wholly unsound, and that in all this conversation with Bram there was nothing of sufficient importance to justify the reversal of the judgment.
120

Again, there is a lack of any proper objection or exception; and, if there is any one thing which may be considered as settled in all appellate courts, it is that an error in the admission of testimony will not be considered unless there was a specific objection and exception at the trial. 'To authorize any objection to the admission or exclusion of evidence, or to the giving or refusal of any instructions to the jury, to be heard in this court, the record must disclose not merely the fact that the objection was taken in the court below, but that the parties excepted at the time to the action of the court thereon.' Hutchins v. King, 1 Wall. 53, 60; U. S. v. McMasters, 4 Wall. 680, 682. 'Our power is confined to exceptions actually taken at the trial.' Railway Co. v. Heck, 102 U. S. 120. See, also, Moore v. Bank, 13 Pet. 302; Camden v. Doremus, 3 How. 515; Zeller's Lessee v. Eckert, 4 How. 289, 297; Phelps v. Mayer, 15 How. 160; Dredge v. Forsyth, 2 Black, 563; Young v. Martin, 8 Wall. 354; Belk v. Meagher, 104 U. S. 279; Hanna v. Maas, 122 U. S. 24, 7 Sup. Ct. 1055; White v. Barber, 123 U. S. 392, 419, 8 Sup. Ct. 221; Stewart v. Ranche Co., 128 U. S. 383, 9 Sup. Ct. 101; Anthony v. Railroad Co., 132 U. S. 172, 10 Sup. Ct. 53; Block v. Darling, 140 U. S. 234, 11 Sup. Ct. 832; Bogk v. Gassert, 149 U. S. 17, 13 Sup. Ct. 738.
121

It is true these were civil cases, for it is only in the later history of this court that we have had jurisdiction of writs of error in criminal cases; but the law is equally applicable to the latter. 'It is the duty of counsel seasonably to call the attention of the court to any error in impaneling the jury, in admitting testimony, or in any other proceeding during the trial, by which his rights are prejudiced, and, in case of an adverse ruling, to note an exception.' Alexander v. U. S., 138 U. S. 353, 355, 11 Sup. Ct. 350, 351. 'The general rule undoubtedly is that an objection should be so framed as to indicate the precise point upon which the court is asked to rule.' Sparf v. U. S., 156 U. S. 51, 56, 15 Sup. Ct. 273, 275; Holder v. U. S., 150 U. S. 91, 14 Sup. Ct. 10; Tucker v. U. S., 151 U. S. 164, 14 Sup. Ct. 299.
122

It is true, the defendant objected to the admission of the conversation before it was given; but, upon the state of facts as then presented, unquestionably the trial court ruled properly in permitting the witness to testify, for he positively declared that there was neither threat nor promise, intimidation or inducement. If it be true, as the court now holds, that in the progress of his testimony it was developed that he did make a statement which carried an inducement,—a suggestion of hope,—it was then the duty of the defendant to call the attention of the court to the matter, either by objecting to any further disclosures of the conversation, or else by a motion to strike out. Nothing of the kind took place. Defendant was apparently content to let all of the subsequent conversation come in. Can it be held that the court erred in not of its own motion stopping the witness, or striking out the testimony, or instructing the jury to disregard it, when defendant asked nothing of the kind? Surely, by this decision we practically overrule the long line of authorities heretofore cited affirming the necessity of calling the attention of the trial court to the specific matter, obtaining its ruling thereon, and saving an exception thereto before there is any jurisdiction in this court to review. Nor is this a mere technical and arbitrary rule which may be dispensed with whenever the exigencies of any case seem to demand, and in no other way a ground for reversal can be discovered. It may be, and undoubtedly often is, the case, that, though incompetent testimony be given, the defendant prefers that it shall remain, in order, for certain purposes, to take advantage of it in the argument before the jury. Can it be possible that he may obtain this advantage, and, having obtained and used it, insist that, because of such incompetent testimony, he is entitled to a reversal of the judgment against him? Wilson v. U. S., 162 U. S. 613-624, 16 Sup. Ct. 895. Who shall say that this defendant, though at first objecting to any testimony respecting his statements, yet, after hearing what the witness said, did not prefer that such testimony remain, as it disclosed that, at the very first moment he was informed that Brown charged him with the crime, he protested that Brown was not in a position where he could see who did the killing? Indeed, for anything in this record to the contrary, he, when a witness in his own behalf, may have given the same version of the conversation, and admitted that his statements were voluntarily made. Who shall say that he did not wish to argue before the jury that the claim made of Brown's inability to see what took place was not an excuse suggested only by the exigencies of the trial, but was presented at the very first moment of the charge; and if he was willing to let the testimony remain, and have all the advantage which he could take of it in argument before the jury, can it be that he can now come to this court, and say, 'True, I did not object to this specific testimony, nor ask to have it stricken out, but it was incompetent,' and obtain a reversal on the ground of its admission?
123

I dissent, therefore—First, because I think the testimony was properly received; and, secondly, because no motion was made to strike it out, and no exception taken to its admission.
124

The CHIEF JUSTICE and Mr. Justice BROWN concur in this dissent.
About This Document

* Full Text
* Citations to/from this

Unless otherwise noted, all cases and statutes on this site are in the public domain.

DISCLAIMER: The people behind AltLaw are not your lawyers, and nothing on this site should be considered legal advice. We also make no representations or promises about the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of any of the content on the site. AltLaw is a beta-release project, and we recommend that before relying on our site, you double-check your results with another legal research resource.

Of course the most fundamental element of a fair process is the right to counsel. Because without a lawyer, a person untrained in the law has no idea

2008-03-20T03:07:00.000-07:00

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Jules: Wanna know what I'm buyin' Ringo?
Pumpkin: What?
Jules: Your life. I'm givin' you that money so I don't hafta kill your ass. You read the Bible?
Pumpkin: Not regularly.
Jules: There's a passage I got memorized. Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you. I been sayin' that shit for years. And if you ever heard it, it meant your ass. I never really questioned what it meant. I thought it was just a cold-blooded thing to say to a motherfucker before you popped a cap in his ass. But I saw some shit this mornin' made me think twice. Now I'm thinkin': it could mean you're the evil man. And I'm the righteous man. And Mr. 9mm here, he's the shepherd protecting my righteous ass in the valley of darkness. Or it could be you're the righteous man and I'm the shepherd and it's the world that's evil and selfish. I'd like that. But that shit ain't the truth. The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be a shepherd.
Posted by dannoynted1 at 3:03 AM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: Bildeburgers, Bush, Commodities, Cornyn, Delay, Prisons, Rove, Saldano, SCOTUS, Students, sugarLand, Texas, TWIST, WIA

South Texas Judicial Watch Dog Authority: Dear Officers of the Court, submitted for further investigation

2007-05-22T00:29:00.000-07:00

South Texas Judicial Watch Dog Authority: Dear Officers of the Court, submitted for further investigation

In Re: State v Villa

Do a little research on Del Mar College's in house counsel, Sean Meredeth, DMC Auditorium, Ballet Nacional, little girls, Joe Alaniz, and the relationship with our DA

Why is this evidence not included in the current prosecution of Villa?

Why not drag the whole bunch down to the Courthouse?

Friends of the Prosecution or not, enough of the selective prosecutions. Plaisted, Applebee, and the one's who covered it up at Parkdale Baptist & St Joseph's here in the Jurisdiction of the Nueces County / 105th District Attorney. Zealously

Possible Brady Material?

Does this material not merit a Grand Jury Investigation?

Pervert in Auditorium

Nueces De La Parra: Nobody kicked Joe Elizondo off of the CCREDC Board. He was inebriated and "with" females not his wife. Ask Denise about the "Bache

2007-05-03T04:24:00.000-07:00

Nueces De La Parra: Nobody kicked Joe Elizondo off of the CCREDC Board. He was inebriated and "with" females not his wife. Ask Denise about the "Bachelorettes' dancing w/ her hubby?

If the situation was reversed I would definitely be the bad guy. Maybe I should go yell at Juan's next event "WHO GIVES A F//K" and chant the CCREDC mantra Chorus. "JUAN MORE" "JUAN MORE" and ask him if he remembers? Juan must be held to a higher standard. Keep the reigns tight on him and everytime he starts to veer byte his a$$.

LOL

Joe Elizondo, surely he is a gentle man and a member of our leadership INFRASTRUCTURE? However, there must be HOUSECLEANING and the "Pulling of Weeds" that poisons us from the Top Down.

Elizondo began chanting JUAN MORE, JUAN MORE over and over (increasing in menacing heckle tone). Everyone ignored him so he continued with the JUAN MORE, JUAN MORE escalation. Then the Guitar Guy with the HAt "straight off of the sunset strip" was suggesting songs (lead ins). Elizondo yelled, "WHO GIVES A FUCK" and some other MINUTIA (uncalled for). He was directing his disrespect at the stage. My wife & I at the same time said, "HEY" and we turned to him with a meeting of the eyes. His group separated and Elizondo departed in a new truck. The others with him were friendly & charming before and after.

Roderick, Peter, O'Connor, CIA & JFK

2007-04-22T05:14:00.000-07:00

New Discoveries in Recently Released Assassination Files

Table of Contents

DECLASSIFIED by Roger S. Peterson: Read this excellent summation of the possible significance of some of many thousands of documents, newly-released because of the recent JFK Records Act and Assassination Records Review Board. This article is reprinted by permission from the publishers of American History magazine. It originally appeared in their August 1996 issue.
Blakey's "Linchpin": Dr. Guinn, Neutron Activation Analysis, & the Single-Bullet Theory - Part 1
by Wallace Milam.

And:: Even though the House Select Committee on Assassinations came to the conclusion of a possible conspiracy, they concluded the single-bullet theory was legitimate. The head council of the committee, Robert Blakey, utilized the work of Dr. Vincent Guinn in the effort to prove Oswald fired this "magic" bullet. But, how useful is Guinn's information in proving the validity of the single bullet theory? [Note: This article has 7 appendices containing additional information].
: In two parts, this article examines the question of whether a match could be made of bullet fragments in existence from the Kennedy assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald's ammunition. The idea of a possible match was originally presented by Dr. Vincent Guinn. Recently Dr. Kenneth Rahn argued in support of Guinn's findings. Can any such match be made by using the method of neutron activation analisis (NAA)?
JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS: THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT by Dr. Gary Aguilar: Gary Aguilar has assembled a remarkable collection of 46 of the earliest known witness descriptions concerning the location of JFK's head wound. 44 of the 46 witnesses all described some kind of damage low in the rear of JFK's head. This head wound bullet entrance location, as described by the autopsy doctors, is inconsistent with the above and behind direction of the origin of the shots, as presented by the Warren Commission. Because of the nature of the head wound, it is highly unlikely that all the shots came from the alleged sniper nest in the Texas School Book Depository, where this theoretical lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, supposedly fired all of the bullets.
CIA Files and the Pre-Assassination Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald by Peter Dale Scott: Here is one sample piece from a collection of essays called Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Mexico and Cuba: The New Revelations in U.S. Government Files, 1994-1995. This work, a sequel to the book, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, was produced by a former Canadian diplomat and Professor from the University of California at Berkeley. Dr. Scott is one of the leading experts on interpretation of files on the JFK assassination. In this selection, Peter gives us his fascinating evaluation of the significance of key, newly released CIA files on Lee Harvey Oswald.
The Three Oswald Deceptions: The Operation. The Cover-Up, and the Conspiracy by Peter Dale Scott: Here is another example from Peter's collection of essays, Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Mexico and Cuba: The New Revelations in U.S. Government Files, 1994-1995. This essay, is the next one presented in the sequence of essays from the collection following the other selection that we previously republished titled, "CIA Files and the Pre-Assassination Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald." Peter continues with his analysis of newly released files relating to Lee Harvey Oswald. He takes us through the complex and murky world of US Intelligence and explores shocking, deliberate disinformation involving Oswald, the CIA and Cuba.
INCA Dinka Do by Jerry D. Rose: This article describes a propaganda organization with ties to US intelligence that not only was involved in creating the legend of a communist Oswald, before the assassination, but also spread this information to the media immediately following the arrest of Oswald for the crime. This organization, headed by Ed Butler and Alton Ochsner, also had a strange involvement with the Garrison investigation and prosecution of Clay Shaw in the late 60s. The author, Dr. Jerry Rose has a Ph.D. in sociology and produces The Fourth Decade research journal on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. This article and others we have posted were originally published in The Fourth Decade. You can subscribe to this scholarly publication for $25 per year, $45 for two years or $65 for three years. Send to The Fourth Decade, State University College, Fredonia, New York 14063. This article was originally published in The Fourth Decade, Vol. 4, #3, March, 1997.
Bringing it All Together: The New Releases And How They Help Us Converge On The Heart Of The Case by Peter Dale Scott: Peter Dale Scott gives an overview of the big picture relating to the recent file releases. Because of new revelations in the files, we now see a convergence in the gangster elements and the government factions that explains much about the way these two different groups (both subjects of competing theoretical conspiratorial viewpoints) might have been connected in the "deep politics" of the early 60s. This piece, was originally published in The Fourth Decade research journal, Volume 4, #1, November, 1996 (see the Jerry Rose article description below for Fourth Decade subscription information).
In The Files by John Newman: We are reprinting part John Newman's testimony to U. S. House of Representatives oversight committee headed by John Conyer's, from November 17, 1993. Dr. Newman points out some interesting issues concerning files such as the CIA's interest in Oswald before the assassination and their record of deception concerning the accused presidential assassin. This excerpt was also published in the Coalition On Political Assassination's newsletter, Open Secrets, in their first issue of August, 1994.
Two Big Lies: Files are Open, Case is Closed by John Judge: Researcher and COPA governing board member, John Judge, gives us his appraisal of the first large batch of files released resulting from the creation of the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act. He also characterizes the predictable news media reaction to the significance of this first large group of documents released. This article was originally published in Prologue: Newsletter of the Committee for an Open Archives, Vol. 1, #4, November, 1993.
No Smoking Gun, But Something Smells by Jerry Policoff and John Judge: Here we have a brief sampling of some of the early file releases from establishment of the Assassination Records Review Board after their creation by Congress for the purpose of unsealing all files relating to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. This article was originally published in the Coalition On Political Assassination's newsletter, Open Secrets, in their first issue, published August, 1994.
: It was long thought that the descriptions of JFK's head wound by the Dallas Parkland Hospital witnesses conflicted with the descriptions of the Bethesda autopsy witnesses. The work of Dr. Gary Aguilar, who has collected newly released HSCA materials, now shows that there was no conflict. Virtually all witnesses to the nature of the JFK head wound describe the location as the right rear of the head. The HSCA buried much of this information and led the readers of their report to believe the wound to be at the top of the head. Originally published in The Fourth Decade, July, 1995.
Oswald and the CIA by Dick Russell: Dick Russell, author of The Man Who Knew Too Much (Carroll and Graf, New York, 1992) , updates the Richard Case Nagell story and examines CIA actions in Mexico City in 1963. Reprinted by permission of High Times magazine, from the August, 1996 issue.
JFK & the Cuban Connection by Dick Russell: Russell reports on the new information obtained from Cuban intelligence personel that points to Cuban exile and mob involvement in the plot to kill JFK. Reprinted by permission of High Times magazine, from the March, 1996 issue.
Blows Against the Empire: A Breach in the Wall of Government Secrecy - The Review Series, Part 1 by Martin Shackelford: Longtime JFK researcher Martin Shackelford dissects the ARRB in this excellent seven part series originally published in Review magazine. Part one covers the establishment of the Board. Mr. Shackelford is currently working on a fully footnoted version of this series which we will present upon completion.
Pieces of the Jigsaw - The Review Series, Part 2 by Martin Shackelford: Part 2, subtitled "Pieces of the Jigsaw" looks at what the newly released files reveal about Oswald's defection to the USSR.
The Plot Thickens: Lee Harvey Oswald in a Covert World - The Review Series, Part 3 by Martin Shackelford: More evidence is surfacing proving intelligence agency involvement in Oswald's activities in New Orleans in the summer of 1963.
Sunshine in Dark Corners: Covert Intelligence Operatives and Lee Oswald - The Review Series, Part 4 by Martin Shackelford: Clay Shaw's involvement with intelligence agencies is revealed, as well as his interest in anti-Castro activities in New Orleans. Oswald's repeated contacts with persons with intelligence agency links are examined.
The Early Investigations: Before and After the Assassination - The Review Series, Part 5 by Martin Shackelford: After the assassination, extraordinary measures were used by the intelligence agencies to stonewall their files and conceal their knowledge of Oswald.
History Repeats Itself: The House Select Committee on Assassinations - The Review Series, Part 6 by Martin Shackelford: The failure of the HSCA to resolve the medical issues in the assassination is exposed.
A Celebration of Freedom: Latest Research and Secrets from the Files - The Review Series, Part 7 by Martin Shackelford: More on intelligence agency activities during the assassination investigations, including additional destruction of key files.

No written report exists that indicates that DHS has Jurisdiction in this case.........or is fleeing into Mexico~it ?

2007-02-26T01:55:00.000-08:00

Sutton Statement re:Ramos and Compean conviction
August 11,2006
Page 3
Testimony elicited at trial clearly established that,until an investigation initiated at the Washington,
D.C.headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security,Office of the Inspector General began on March
4,2005,no written report had been filed,no oral report had been made,and no person in any official capacity
was cognizant of the fact that a shooting had occurred or a firearm had been discharged by any Border Patrol
Agent in the direction of an individual fleeing into Mexico after having failed to stop for immigration status
identification on February 17,2005.The only report of any law enforcement activity on file for the Fabens
Border Patrol Station on that date was an Immigration and Naturalization form I-44,Report of Apprehension
or Seizure,authored by both defendants and signed by Jose Alonso Compean.The very brief report stated
that after the driver of the van failed to pull over for an immigration check:“The driver of the van began
driving back south towards Mexico.The driver was able to abscond into Mexico.”The report,admitted into
evidence,then indicated that immediately after the driver absconded,defendant Ramos spotted the bags of
marijuana in the van.No written report exists that indicates that defendant Compean was assaulted by the
driver,tussled with the driver,was threatened by the driver ’s actions or thought the driver had a gun.Both
supervisors who arrived at the scene,after the incident was over,repeatedly asked defendant Compean if he
was assaulted or injured and if he wished for them to file a Report of Assault-Service Employees,which is
routinely completed if an agent reports being assaulted by a suspect.Compean did not wish such a report to
be filed.
This office did not prosecute the defendants because they had violated Border Patrol policies.They
were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender,but,while his
open hands were held in the air,Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of his shotgun.In fear
of what the agents would do to him next,the man ran away from the agents,who then fired at least 15 rounds
at him,although they had seen his open hands and knew that he was not holding a weapon and had no reason
to think that he had a weapon,hitting him once causing serious bodily injury.The references to policies are
made only to demonstrate that had the defendants believed that the shooting was justified,there was no reason
for them to conceal it from supervisors and remove evidence from the scene.The laws of the United States
make it a crime for law enforcement officers to use excessive force in apprehending suspects.It is a violation
of any person ’s Constitutional rights to shoot at them after they have attempted to surrender,knowing that
they are unarmed and pose no danger to the officers or anyone else.
At the initiation of their investigation,the DHS Office of Inspector General contacted Aldrete-Davila
who was at the time in Mexico.Aldrete-Davila was at first reluctant to cooperate with the investigation
because he feared that should he return to the United States,he could be prosecuted for the offenses
committed in relation to the load of marijuana he was driving on February 17,2005.In order to secure his
cooperation and appearance at trial in the United States,this office agreed that in return for his truthful
testimony he would not be prosecuted for the February 17,2005 offenses.The agreement does not immunize
any other conduct.
Based on all of the evidence admitted at the two week trial,including the lengthy testimony of both of
the defendants,the jury of twelve citizens heard all of the testimony,judged the demeanor and credibility of
the witnesses and unanimously found both defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of eleven of the
twelve counts alleged in the indictment,including assault with a dangerous weapon,assault with serious
bodily injury,discharge of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence and wilfully violating
Aldrete-Davila ’s Constitutional,Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal seizure,as well as
obstructing justice by intentionally defacing the crime scene,lying about the incident,and failing to report the
truth.
#####

"But I've seen priests put on cologne, dress up and go on dates with guys."

2007-02-18T04:02:00.001-08:00

ilenced priest warns of gay crisis

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Starting today, 290 of the nation's Catholic bishops will meet at the Capitol Hyatt for their yearly business meeting and to tie up loose ends on the massive sexual-abuse crisis that has shaken the U.S. Catholic Church to its core in the past two years.
Although it's been less than a year since the church revealed that there were 10,667 cases of abuse committed by 4,392 priests in a 50-year period, the message at the meeting will be that the crisis is under control.
But it's far from over, says a local Catholic priest who says the true source of the crisis is a priesthood that is "honeycombed" with homosexual clerics, especially in the Diocese of Arlington.
However, attempts by the Rev. James Haley, 48, to persuade his bishop of the problem have backfired. After hearing from the priest about numerous instances of homosexual activity among diocesan clergy, Arlington Bishop Paul Loverde ordered the priest silenced Oct. 23, 2001. This "precept of silence" — usually only employed during church trial proceedings — is rarely used to silence a whistleblower.
Thus, in the past three years, Father Haley's case, which also involves accusations of sexual misconduct against him, has become a cause celebre among many Catholics in the Diocese of Arlington.
It's also attracted the attention of the Vatican, which summoned him to appear before an ecclesiastical court in March. Church officials held two more hearings on the matter this summer and last week scheduled a fourth hearing in conjunction with the bishops' meeting. Less than 24 hours later, after the priest, now living several states away, had bought nonrefundable plane tickets to Washington, the meeting was canceled suddenly.
Father Haley says his only crime is his insistence that homosexual priests, not solely pedophiles, are at the root of the sexual-abuse crisis. The Catholic priesthood is demoralized, he says, by groups of homosexual clerics who control who gets admitted to seminary, which men get nominated for bishop and which priests get the plum parishes.
Based on his 17 years in the priesthood, he estimates that 60 percent of the Diocese of Arlington's 127 diocesan priests are homosexuals, which is high compared with national estimates of 30 percent to 50 percent from other authorities on the priesthood.
As his prospects of returning to life as a parish priest dwindle, he has amassed reams of tapes, videos, photographs, e-mail messages and 1,200 pages of documents for a tell-all book on homosexuality and the priesthood.
"I am astounded the bishops will protect these guys, promote them, even make them bishops," he says. "This is a huge moral issue, and if the bishops aren't clear on this, the pope needs to rule on it.
"People will say there's nothing wrong with homosexual priests as long as they are celibate. Well, that is a totally naive statement and totally wrong."
Backlash
Father Haley, who is living on a $1,700 a month stipend from the Arlington Diocese and relies on his motorcycle for transport, says his troubles began after several confrontations with his bishop over the priest's charges that homosexuals were indulged by the diocese.
Bishop Loverde, in turn, has leveled several charges at the priest, ranging from sexual misconduct to talking with the press. He has turned the case over to the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, overseen by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger.
The cardinal asked Bishop Thomas G. Doran of Rockford, Ill., to preside at an ecclesiastical court, which has met in three closed sessions this year. Once the case is wrapped up, it will be forwarded to the Vatican for judgment.
Bishop Doran was "supportive," Father Haley says, but he told the priest, "We cannot discuss the homosexual issue because there are people above us who don't think it's a problem."
"He also explained to me: Even if I was to win this hearing, Loverde would appeal this to another [Vatican] congregation. If I lose, I cannot appeal it, but if I win, he can appeal. So three to four years might pass."
Although Bishop Doran's office did not respond to several requests for comment, the Rev. Arthur Espelage, executive coordinator of the Canon Law Society, an Alexandria-based group of 1,500 specialists in church law and court procedures, says Bishop Doran's intervention means that the Vatican is concerned.
"This is a lot more serious than Bishop Loverde being ticked off at Haley," he says.
But Stephen Brady of the watchdog group Roman Catholic Faithful says Father Haley "made Loverde look bad, so they will make him pay a price by dragging this case out as long as they want."
"The bishops defend pedophile priests by saying canon law forbids them from removing them without just cause," he says. "But if someone like Father Haley embarrasses a bishop, the church ignores canon law and throws him out."
War of words
When questioned by The Washington Times on Sept. 8, Bishop Loverde refused to discuss the case and Father Haley's accusations.
"The canonical process is undergoing," he said, "and I cannot comment on it."
However, he has resurrected some 1995 sexual-misconduct charges against Father Haley made when the Most Rev. John R. Keating was bishop of the diocese.
The sexual-misconduct charge, Father Haley says, was from a 1994 conversation with a female friend, who, while describing the effects of her breast cancer, placed the priest's hand on where the surgery had taken place.
Although the woman and her attorney both refused comment when contacted by The Washington Times, the priest says, "There was no sexual misconduct."
"I've never had sex in my entire life," he says.
Bishop Keating found Father Haley not guilty of impropriety and assigned him a post as assistant pastor at All Saints Catholic Church in Manassas, the largest church in the Washington area with 20,000 members.
He was planning to promote the priest into a church pastorship in Sterling, when he died suddenly in Rome in 1998, says the Rev. James R. Gould, former vocations director for the diocese.
Father Haley is "a good man and a good priest," Father Gould said. "I am very concerned for him. It is still my hope to have him back in the priesthood, and he is always welcome with me."
Father Haley never got his promotion. According to a 233-page deposition filed July 24, 2002, in Arlington County Circuit Court, the priest became aware of an affair between a married parishioner, Nancy Lambert, and the Rev. James Verrecchia, then pastor of All Saints and Father Haley's boss. Mrs. Lambert became pregnant with Father Verrecchia's child, divorced her husband, then married the priest in the spring of 2000. Mr. Verrecchia is now parish administrator at Holy Innocents Episcopal Church in Atlanta.
Jim Lambert, the divorced husband of Nancy Lambert, then filed a $5 million suit against the diocese on the grounds that Bishop Loverde knew of the affair months before the priest was ordered to stop seeing Mrs. Lambert.
The person who informed the bishop about the affair in June 1999 was Father Haley.
In the 2002 deposition, which Roman Catholic Faithful has posted at www.rcf.org, Father Haley also revealed sexually graphic details about other priests in the diocese.
"The bishop said there is nothing wrong with these guys," he recalled. "I said, 'You haven't lived with them.' "
The Arlington Diocese is one of a few in the country that refuses — at least on paper — to sponsor homosexual applicants for seminary. Most dioceses admit such applicants with a variety of sexual histories, although the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) will reconsider this policy at its June meeting in Chicago.
Father Haley contends that Bishop Loverde is loath to enforce diocesan policy, which was installed by his predecessor, Bishop Keating.
"I was never asked by my bishop if I was gay," Father Haley said. Bishop Loverde "told me he had no right to ask that question, but I said you have a right to ask that question if you are putting men together [in parish rectories] who are sexually attracted to each other."
Root of the problem
The Rev. Donald Cozzens, author of the 2000 book "The Changing Face of the Priesthood," estimates 50 percent of all Catholic priests are homosexual.
Psychotherapist Richard Sipe, a former Catholic priest who has written and spoken widely on the priesthood, says 15 percent of homosexual priests are sexually active.
If all homosexual clergy were to leave the U.S. Catholic Church now, the church would lose one-third of its bishops as well, added Mr. Sipe, whose new book on priestly sexual abuse dating back to the fourth century, comes out Nov. 15.
Father Haley says homosexuality is at the root of the huge priestly sex-abuse crisis in which 81 percent of the cases involved victims who were males younger than 18, according to a USCCB investigation.
"Isn't the huge amounts of AIDS among the clergy a symptom of the problem?" he asked, citing a 2000 Kansas City Star estimate of the rate of AIDS deaths among priests that is at least four times that of the general population. "These are guys who are supposed to be celibate, virtually chaste and modest.
"But I've seen priests put on cologne, dress up and go on dates with guys."
He wonders whether Pope John Paul II understands this.
"I would ask him, 'Your Holiness, is it proper to hire these men or not?' " Father Haley said. "You have to question whether or not these guys even have the rudiments of the faith."
The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is an "intrinsically disordered" condition and, on Oct. 25, released a document saying such behavior "is not consistent with moral law." But it has no formal prohibition against homosexual priests. A Feb. 2, 1961, Vatican directive does say that "advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty."
In March 2002, as the clergy sex-abuse scandal in Boston assumed national proportions, Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls told the New York Times that, "People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained."
He added, "That does not imply a final judgment on people with homosexuality ... but you just cannot be in this field."
That same year, Pope John Paul II told Brazilian bishops to be extremely careful when screening men for the priesthood so as to avoid "deviations in their affections."
"It is an ongoing struggle to make sure the Catholic priesthood is not dominated by homosexual men," Bishop Wilton Gregory, president of the USCCB, told the Associated Press.
Father Haley says the problem goes straight to the top.
"Loverde had said to me there's nothing wrong [with homosexuality] as long as you're celibate," he said. "So I said there would be nothing wrong with me living with nuns the rest of my life as long as I am celibate. He just looked at me."
Support from home
Northern Virginia Catholics have demonstrated outside Bishop Loverde's chancery, sent Father Haley 600 letters of support, contributed money to help defer his legal costs and set up a supportive Web site: www.truthinarlington.com.
"I know Father Haley to be a dedicated, holy priest," said a former member of St. Mark Catholic Church in Vienna, Va., where the priest served from 1987 to 1991.
"He impressed me with his reverence during Mass and excellent homilies, which have been always true to the Gospel. He was well-liked and well-respected in our parish," she said in an interview on the condition of anonymity.
She attributed his current troubles to "his zeal for the church," adding, "He wants it pure and holy."
Michael Gray, a parishioner at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Fredericksburg, Father Haley's last parish, said he was "a very good priest."
"He's a brilliant speaker. He's the best. There wasn't anything wrong with him. He just told the truth. He just stood up, and look where it's gotten him. He's been sent to limbo."
Charles Molineaux, a Catholic lawyer from McLean, buttonholed Bishop Loverde about Father Haley when he spotted the prelate at a funeral this spring.
"Loverde told me I needed to have patience," he said. "I said, 'Well, you know, bishop, justice delayed is justice denied.' "
"At that point, he blew his stack. He said I was being judgmental. I said, 'Well, I am a lawyer, and we make judgment calls, and you are being unjust.' "
Many local Catholics were shocked to read about two priests exposed in the deposition Father Haley gave in the Lambert divorce lawsuit, which the diocese unsuccessfully tried to seal.
The Rev. William J. Erbacher of St. Lawrence Catholic Church in Franconia resigned soon after the deposition revealed that he embezzled church funds and collected homosexual pornography featuring young boys. The diocese has never revealed the results of two audits of Father Erbacher, one conducted by the diocese and the other by the Internal Revenue Service.
St. Stephen the Martyr Church in Middleburg, Va., takes phone messages and mail for him.
The Rev. Daniel Hamilton, pastor of St. Mary's Church, resigned after the deposition claimed he kept a collection of sadomasochistic and homosexual pornography in his rectory bedroom. After a psychiatric evaluation for what the bishop termed his "improper activity," he went to live at St. Francis de Sales Church in Kilmarnock, Va.
The diocese lists both men as on leaves of absence. Father Haley said he provided Bishop Loverde incriminating material about six other priests in the diocese, plus additional names culled from e-mails in Father Erbacher's files.
"There were homosexual jokes being sent not only to men around the diocese, but to priests around the country," he said.
Which is why, Father Haley said, he was summoned to the diocesan chancery on that October afternoon in 2001, given four hours to vacate his rectory and ordered by the bishop to remain silent.
The bishop's only public response to Father Haley's charges came a year later — in Sept. 14, 2002, and Dec. 3, 2002, letters defending his actions after the story hit the newspapers and TV.
"I want every parishioner in this diocese to know that allegations by some in the media stating that I have ignored priestly misconduct are absolutely false," he wrote.
"While Father Haley was always free to 'go over my head' and bring his accusations and criticisms to other ecclesiastical authorities, he chose instead to resort to the media."
Several of Father Haley's advocates suggest that Bishop Loverde got advice on priestly silencing from Altoona-Johnstown, Pa., Bishop Joseph Adamec. Bishop Adamec's diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Register, ran a front-page photo of the two bishops on May 5, 2003, and informed readers that Bishop Loverde had been invited to speak in the diocese.
On Sept. 9, 1999, Bishop Adamec forbade a local priest, the Rev. Philip Saylor, from talking about the diocese's track record on sexual-abuse cases. Father Saylor was given a canonical "precept of silence," the same as was given to Father Haley, and threatened with excommunication if he disobeyed.
The bishop posted the order on his Web site, www.diocesealtjtn.org/news, and wrote a March 17, 2003, letter to the Wall Street Journal defending his decision. The bishop was under some pressure, because the Tribune-Democrat in Johnstown had published in June 2002 an investigation saying the diocese had allowed at least 10 pedophile priests to continue working while abusing hundreds of boys.
"There's a point where you have to put your faith on the line," Father Haley said. "You have to put your life at risk. I am willing to die for this. I am willing to stand up for the truth. Someday, this will all come out. The abuse scandal will seem small compared to this."

"But I've seen priests put on cologne, dress up and go on dates with guys."

2007-02-18T04:02:00.000-08:00

where your voters are illiterate or they cannot speak, read, and write the English or Spanish languages you have to haul them like cattle to the polls

2007-01-25T21:32:00.000-08:00

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE
LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON LIBRARY
Legal Agreement pertaining to the Oral History Interview of Dudley T . Dougherty
In accordance with the provisions of Chapter 21 of Title 44, United States
Code and subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, I,
James R: Dougherty III of Beeville, Texas, do hereby give, donate and convey
to the United States of America all my rights, title and interest in the
tape recordings and transcripts of the personal interviews conducted with
Dudley T . Dougherty on December 27, 1971 in Beeville, Texas, and on
September 17, 1975 in San Antonio, Texas, and prepared for deposit in the
Lyndon Baines Johnson Library . -
.
This assignment is subject to the following terms and conditions :
(1) The transcripts shall be available for use by researchers-as soon
as they have been deposited in the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library .
(2) The tape recordings shall be available to those researchers who
have access to the transcripts .
(3) I hereby assign to the United States Government all _copyright
I may have in the interview transcripts and tapes .
.
(4) Copies of the transcripts and the tape recordings may be provided
by the Library to researchers upon request .
(5) Copies of the transcripts and tape recordings may be deposited in
or loaned to institutions other than the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library_
U /11
i Ist of the United tapes
.3 /, / 979
Date
INTERVIEW I
DATE :
December 27, 1971
INTERVIEWEE :
DUDLEY T . DOUGHERTY
INTERVIEWER :
JOE B . FRANTZ
PLACE :
Mr . Dougherty's office in Beeville, Texas
Tape l of 1, Side 1_
F :
Mr . Dougherty, I suppose what we will do is start back at the time
when you came in from the war with the idea of either winning the
peace, or losing the peace, whatever one does when he comes home .
D :
I had helped people close to me that I had met in Paris after the
war was over, and they were devoting their lives to things such
as the practice of international law or consular services--not just
Paris but other places--to work to win the peace .
I came home and I had immediate responsibilities, although I
entered the University of Texas for a little while . I had had a
couple of years there before .
F :
You had lost a brother in the war?
D :
I lost a brother in the war . And the letter came to me--I had written
him a long letter .
F :
You were the sole son then?
D :
It left me the sole son, two sisters, an aging father and mother .
And very large responsibilities that I would take over shortly, I
knew . So I entered again the University of Texas . It has been said
that I wouldn't have lasted there anyway, and maybe that's so, maybe
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 2
it isn't so. We'll never know .
F :
No one can prove anything on that, can they?
D :
We'll never know. But when my brother-in-law was killed in a hunting
accident, that made two deaths in my family--male members--within
a couple of years of one another .
I came back to Beeville, Texas, to learn everything that my
father could teach me about the business . So I went over every
bit of ground of lands that we had bought . I went all over our oil
leases, watched the drilling of various wells in Refugio County
and elsewhere, went torLouisiana, went to West Texas . I devoted
myself to learning at firsthand what I would have to learn .
I had my twenty-second birthday shortly after my Army
discharge, and naturally I'm a young bachelor . And when you have
all the trials and tribulations that young bachelors can, I am sure
you can, if you have to, dig up various scrapes I've been in--all
of that--if you care to do it .
F :
That's not my concern . That's consigned to the past .
D :
But I followed county politics at an intensive level . I wanted the
replacement of the sheriff of Bee County . I thought he had a taste
for blood, and quietly I ran candidates against him and encouraged
opposition to ,.him . That was about my only interest in politics
except to wish that I did not have the immediate responsibility that
I did, [so] that I could run in an election . There was Lloyd Bentsen
who had returned from the war, got himself elected county judge at ,
twenty-six, and then congressman . And I remember when that happened,
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 3
I thought then that I just wished to God that I were free to do that .
F :
Did you begin to build up a fair acquaintance across the state with
politicians?
D :
Not too many, just those that I'd gone to school with . I knew Frank
Oltorf, who was in the legislature at the state level . I went to the
Democratic convention in 1948 in Philadelphia, drove there with a
couple of cousins and watched the nomination of Harry Truman .
F :
Were you still waiting up at three in the morning when he came in
from that train on the siding to get the nomination?
D :
I thought he was in an alley waiting to be notified .
F :
He was right outside .
D :
Then he came in and made the speech and said, "Now, Senator Barkley
and I are going to win this election and make the Republicans like
it ." And I have been a Democrat, though fairly independent--a maverick
Democrat--ever since, because I watched the Texas caucus, and I watched
the bankruptcy of the Dixiecrat movement with old Senator Ed Joe
Hill--was that his name?
F : Yes .
D :
And this poor, tiring Governor [Beauford] Jester . And I had a
proxy that I could use if I wanted to use it, and I did not use it
because Ididn't want to be in a caucus squabble that was already a
foregone conclusion and endless . But I came out of the caucus and
I met some lady I was introduced to in a hotel, a prominent club
woman, and I said, "As far as I'm concerned, I'm for Truman ." And
she later told my cousin how much she admired someone who could come
out and say that, as unpopular as Truman was supposed to be .
I cast my first vote in 1946, and it was for Homer Rainey because
I wanted a change, and then I decided that Rainey would probably have
been bad for Texas--that Jester, who was a Harvard man but he never
put it in the papers, was probably the better choice . But I wanted
change . I wanted change then . Those were my opinions then .
F :
I voted for Rainey myself in 1946 as much out of the conviction that
you needed a protest vote as I did for any kind of affirmative
belief .
D :
I did it as a
protest .
I did it as a protest, but T was not a
Raineyite . But I knew old Professor Frank Dobie very well . He had
come up to our offices . My father did his legal work .
F :
He came from down in here, didn't he?
D :
His mother lived here, and he'd come to see his mother . My father
handled his legal work for his ranch in Live Oak County . And it's
interesting to know, maybe perhaps, that at a local level he was
an extremely conservative man . He fought every road, every increase
in taxes by the school district, what have you .
F :
Did your father take more than just a citizen's interest in
politics?
D :
My father, who was fifty-three when I was born, told me that in 1896
when he cast his first vote that he saw no reason to vote for
W . J . [William Jennings] Bryan because W . J . Bryan came to a convention,
stormed it with an emotional speech, -and he didn't think all
of his magic formula of 16 to 1 silver to gold, so he cast his first
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 4
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 5
vote for the splinter Democrat, whose name I believe was Potter
Palmer, or something like that . And then greatly because he lost
and he saw he had been on a losing side and that he was a young,
struggling attorney, he didn't take immediate interest in politics,
whether Teddy Roosevelt or Woodrow Wilson, and all of that .
He
remained a Democrat from then on though .
But in the 1920s when the Democratic Party in Bee County was
taken over by the three Ks,--the Ku Klux Klan--they had the sheriffs,
the judges ; Catholic people weren't called up for jury service--he
organized a local party called the Citizens Party .
That was a
little before my time .
The Citizens Party took over control of Bee
County, and they held control until about 1932. Then were elected
in the November elections, the various judges, sheriffs, what have you .
Then in 1932 or so, he let the Citizens Party drop, .but that's how he
fought the three Ks .
F :
Your Uncle Dudley was fairly active in politics, wasn't he?
D :
He ran for the legislature in 1916 and lost. Dudley Tarlton . He
lived here for a while and then he moved to Corpus Christi . He was
district attorney here, too ; that's another thing .
F :
Did you get active in the primary in 1943 between Stevenson and
Johnson, or did you sit that out?
D :
I did not . I asked my father how he was voting, and he said, "I'm
voting for Coke Stevenson ." I didn't ask him why .
F :
Did you know either candidate personally at that time?
D :
I met Lyndon Johnson in 1948, because Frank Oltorf called me and
asked me to come and meet him . His helicopter was landing in Beeville
at the fairgrounds .
F :
Did he lose his hat?
D :
That I don't recall .
But I came down . I asked my father,
"You're for the other man .
Do you want me to go down there and
meet him or not?" He said, "Yes, of course, I know him . He used
to come in my office many years ago with Dick Kleberg ." So I went
down and I introduced myself and told him I was Judge Dougherty's
son . He said in a very loud voice, "Thank your father for his
support ."
F :
Did he know he didn't have it?
D :
He knew he didn't have it . I came back and I told my father the
story, and he said, "Well, I wonder why he said that . He knows
good and well that I'm for Stevenson ." I remember his speech then :
he talked about the Depression--ten .cent oil, crops that couldn't be
picked, that theme .
I had also met George Peddy, who had been, I believe, military
governor of Rome, and he had some understanding and whose integrity
was unquestionable . I heard my father talk about George .
My
mother voted for George Peddy the first time, and Uncle Dudley
voted for George Peddy the first time . I heard my father talking
about George Peddy's speeches and all of that, and he said, "He's
the best man running, but he makes the worst speeches that I've
ever heard ." Maybe I made worse speeches, I don't know .
F :
We won't run any analyses on that .
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 6
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 7
D :
(Laughter) I was given the text of these speeches, and they read
well, but it was, I suppose, the manner of delivery .
F :
I know when Alf Landon used to get up, you must remember the newsreels,
when Landon ran against Roosevelt .
D :
I took an avid interest in that . I was only eleven or twelve, but
I followed . I had two very new anti-New Deal aunts, and I had my father
who was already beginning to get unhappy about the New Deal, but he
was a friend of Garner's and Tom Connally--very close to Tom
Connally . I remember he played solitaire during most of the election
day . But Roosevelt, as he told me then, was already saying, "economic
royalists," what have you, and he said, "That's because he's scared
of Huey Long, Huey Long is 'Share the Wealth .' Roosevelt, they
tell me, is a good poker player, knows politics . It's excellent
politics, but it's damaging the country, and in the development of
this Tom O'Connor field for a little while, not very long ."
Harold Ickes had control of the oil industry, and we had our
plans to develop a field . We sent them to Washington . They were
for a period of over seven, eight, ten years, and he had his hundred
wells or so that he could drill . That creates new jobs, a good
field with a depression going on, and then they send back from
Washington permission to drill four wells and the Charles Evans
Hughes Supreme Court throws that out . So we have state allowables
and state prorations .
I talked to one German once, a German capitalist, and he said :
"State prorations are socialism" and all that . And he said, "Yes,
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 8
but we're happy with it ." That was years later .,
In early 1937, and I realize that the Hughes court threw out
things they never should have thrown out, like AAA and anything
coming up, but in 1937 when I was thirteen, my father broke then with
Roosevelt and the New Deal, not over high taxes, but over increasing
the court to fifteen from nine to pack it and get his own men on
there, And I think [Hugo] Black, who possibly made a good
justice--his ;record will have to be studied--he had his three K
background, and my father had fought the three Ks . That was that,
as far as he was concerned . There was no third term for him or
anything else .
But I followed politics very avidly as a child . And I remember
when I first heard of Lyndon Johnson in 1937, when the Democratic
Party had split. It had split over Barkley Harrison 39 to 38, over
who was for the court packing and who was against . Lyndon ran on
Roosevelt 100 per cent, right or wrong, "Whatever he's for, I'm for .
What he's against, I'm against ." Roosevelt was highly popular . But
I felt that was wrong then
F :
How did your Uncle Dudley - become Johnson's lawyer in that 1948
contest? Had he done work for him previously?
D :
All he knew of Lyndon Johnson was that he'd go to state conventions
where one was in Corpus Christi, and Lyndon would put his arm around
Clara Driscoll and put his arm around Dudley Tarlton and flatter them .
But he became the attorney because he got called at four o'clock in the
morning by Lyndon Johnson himself . He said, "There's a contest in
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 9
Alice that is developing . Will you go over there and take the
case?"
He had voted for George Peddy first and then for Johnson over
Stevenson . When I asked him why he voted for Johnson over
Stevenson, he said, "I like a fellow that speaks to you every day
and just not some of the time . When Stevenson sees me and he
approves of what I'm doing, he says,'Good morning,' and when he
doesn't, he doesn't ." And that was the only reason he gave .
F :
Do you think Johnson would have chosen him because he knew this
area?
D :
He chose him because he was the finest attorney in South Texas
for that kind of work . He had a long record of won-lost cases
[causes] . And because he was not entirely happy with my running
against Johnson, he came in and told me, "Look, they called me at
four in the morning," when I went in . He took his son and his
daughter with him . The son drove him over to Alice . He had a
heart condition .
F :
He lived in Corpus then .
D :
He lived in Corpus . He got there at nine . When he got there at nine,
as he told me, "I saw a situation that was obviously fraudulent,
just prima-facie"--I don't know Latin, whatever it's called--"and I
didn't know what to say or what to do, so I talked for an hour or
so, just filibustering . But then finally the idea came to me . And
the idea was not to pinpoint this one box, but to break the entire
election down and just see who won it and who lost it . And they were
unwilling to do that ." And he said, "At four in the afternoon, Abe
F :
Yes, Whitfield Davidson .
I announced--
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 1 0
Fortas flew in and a whole bunch of other people, and they didn't know
what in the devil to do about it because Coke Stevenson and Kellis
Dibrell had already taken it to the federal court on the First
Amendment ." The right to vote, what have you . And he said, "I told
them what to do . I told Abe Fortas to go to the friendliest
Supreme Court justice you can find, and stop it right now.
Then
we will eventually know who won as the election is broken down,-when
we find out, whether the Senate determines it, or what have you ."
I think the thing got to Davidson's court in Fort Worth .
D :
And my father, who was an excellent attorney, agreed with Whitfield
Davidson . Whitfield Davidson said the election ought to be run over
again, the primary . And while Uncle Dudley was talking- .to me, after
F :
There seemed to be just evidence of bad or fraudulent voting on
both sides, didn't it?
D :
Well, the only evidence that did come out, out on the surface, was
Box 13, though Coke Stevenson's second cousin did make a readjustment
of thirty-seven votes--that was never gone into .
F :
Where was Coke Stevenson's cousin?
D :
I don't know where he was . But my father agreed with Davidson .
Davidson said that the primary ought to be rerun . Well, when
Uncle Dudley was talking to me in the terminology like Brezhnev,
Kosygin, Dubcek--frank--and I told him that, he said, "Where is the
precedent for rerunning a primary? There is none ." When I
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 1 1
told him, I said, "Well, for the moment, let's talk about things
that we can agree on," because I wasn't going to tell him that I
would not use Box 13 as an issue . He came up--he was trying a
case up here--and then walked into my office and said, "I think
you're doing well, but your issues should be so-on, so-on, so-on .
I heard your talkathon at Houston, and you only made one mistake,
as far as I'm concerned . You said you were running for the vacancy,
that the last senator was W . Lee O'Daniel and Johnson is truly
senator ."
And I think I said
only because of a Democratic instead
of a Republican Congres's . They confused it with the Chavez-Hurley,
and that would have made two-Democrats thrown out and that would
have been too thin . So it never came up, and Johnson took his
place .
F :
Did you happen to go to the state convention that year, and you went
to the national?
D :
I went to the national . That was enough of conventions for me . But
he got his certified, wasn't it, by one vote?
F :
By one vote there, it was a
D :
One changing vote . The man
F :
Did your uncle ever comment
D : No .
F :
Or on the strangulation down in the state prison?
D : Smithwick?
F : Yes .
D : No .
squeaker all the way .
later committed suicide, I heard .
on the Mason case over at Alice?
F :
So you know just about as much about that as I do, that is, just
what you read in the papers .
D :
I knew people that knew Mason . And I knew people who knew Smithwick .
F :
What did they think of them?
D :
My uncle, Francis Dougherty, said that he knew Smithwick well . And
it's only the name Smithwick that is English ; he was Latin American
or Chicano or whatever it's called now .
F :
Some Anglo got in there somewhere, long enough to give a name .
D :
Yes . And that :it was not within the philosophy of Smithwick to
commit suicide . But he knew Smithwick well . Now he wrote Coke
Stevenson and said he wanted .to talk to him, and Coke Stevenson
delayed going over . Then he was strangled in his cell . I thought
I would do something about it, so I made one statement printed in
the San Antonio Light , "$5,000 Reward for Information about the
Death of Sam Smithwick ." And one of the attorneys working for me,
or election people, Kellis Dibrell, called me on the phone and said,
"My God, you don't know what that's done! We've found Smithwick .
He's in a South Presa Street asylum, has been shanghaied there ."
So Colonel Sterling, who knew Smithwick too, and my wife went
up there, and they saw the man and his name was Smithwick, but he
was not Sam Smithwick .
F :
Just curious all the way .
What kind of fellow was Mason?
D :
The story I got was that he was brought down there by Parr himself,
then there was a quarrel and he turned against Parr .
F :
Did you ever know Parr?
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 1 2
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 1 3
D :
Oh, sure . I'd seen him at parties in Corpus Christi when I was a
young bachelor, so-called, I'd go down with my sister. He was
married to Ducky--Thelma Duckworth Parr . I'd seen him at the Dragon
Grill .
F :
Did he have as complete control of Duval County as he reputedly
had?
D :
Let's say that,his organization controlled him as much as he controlled
them . Their livings were dependent on Parr . Parr, if he'd wanted
to, couldn't have cut his losses, taken his seven million dollars
and moved to the Riviera and got out of it . He just could not do
it .
If you have your , own district attorney, your own county judge, your
own constables, school boards--
F :
He was a prisoner of the place, in a sense .
D :
As much as he was dictator and tyrant. He could be a tyrant .
F :
Do you get the feeling from your long association with Texas
politics in that period that Parr really didn't belong to any statewide
candidate, but just sort of picked and chose according to what
he thought he could get? In other words, he'd have gone for Coke
Stevenson if he'd thought Coke was--
D :
I think he did when he ran for lieutenant governor . I think Coke
took the votes .
F :
So the question of whom he delivered for this time, "What have you
done for me lately?" in a sense .
D :
You've got to understand where you have a highly illiterate or
ignorant--and I'm not trying to hurt people's feelings--but where
your voters are illiterate or they cannot speak, read, and write
the English or Spanish languages, which is true to this day, you
have to haul them like cattle to the polls, or it was done the last
time I ran for office .
You go back to the beginning . That started with old Senator
Archer Parr, who ran Duval County . Then he had a brother here,
Dr . Parr, an old doctor with a beard .
F :
Archer did .
D :
Senator Archer Parr, not to be confused with the county judge who
has the same name or is. he still sheriff in Duval? A fraternity
brother of mine . Old Senator Archer Parr ran things, and then he
was a friend of the King-Klebergs .
Feudalism persisted,: .and :it=
persists to this day, not only feudalism but peonage . And it's
nobody's fault, but it has got to be stopped .
Old Senator Parr stood up for his friends, the Klebergs, over
a road through to the King Ranch . And Bob Kleberg was called and
said, "You'll beat your friend Senator Parr if you tell him that he
has to fight the road ." But out of loyalty and the likes, Senator
Parr was defeated .
And George Parr,for one reason or another, went to prison on
an income tax rap . He spent about a year, and then he got out .
And somebody, according to Sam Houston Johnson, who has had his ups
and downs--and I'll quote him because I don't think he'd mind
being quoted on this--when he talked to me confidentially, he:'d=say,
"Don't say so . Somebody told George Parr that Dick Kleberg would
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 1 4
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 1 5
not help him win a pardon, but that wasn't so . Because I went,
either with my brother or alone, with Dick Kleberg to Homer Cummings,
the attorney general, and asked for it ." But based on that
information, George Parr took all of his votes, but his own personal
vote, to [John] Lyle . Now, I'm not arguing that the change didn't
have to be made there . Because young Kleberg had a draft deferment,
and Lyle was on the Anzio Beachhead . That was the issue . But he
lost Duval and the Parrs because of info given to George Parr that
was inaccurate, according to Sam Houston, who I see from time to
time .
F :
While we're on Sam Houston, do you feel that Sam Houston played
much of a role in his brother's success, or has he kind of been-
D :
Yarborough, on the floor of the Senate, said that he was mainly
responsible for his early success, and I'm inclined to agree with
him .
F :
My feelings in my meetings with Sam Houston, and there are not too
many, have been that he's a pretty shrewd boy .
D :
Got a good mind .
F :
And I've wondered just how much he has been in there figuring, and
how much Lyndon Johnson has listened to him .
D :
Lyndon Johnson listened to him when I ran for the Senate, because
all of Lyndon's advice was to come down here to Texas, or a great
deal of Lyndon's advice was to come down here to Texas immediately
and start campaigning . I'd been on television twenty-six hours in
Houston . And Sam Houston told me--and again I don't think I'm
violating a confidence--"Lyndon said, 'Should I go down there,
should I denounce him?
He has called me every name under
the sun, and they tell me I've got to do something!"' And he said,
"I told him, 'no, Lyndon .
If you go down there and start campaigning,
you'll lose two hundred thousand votes . You're the majority leader'"--
or was it minority?
F :
He became majority leader after that election . He was minority
leader .
D :
"Then you're subject to the criticism of ignoring your work . You can
say this is just a young man, a scion with illusions--that kind of
thing ."
Now I had my tapes of my Houston talkathon .
It was all in my
office . I never played . :them . But I had them, and they burned .
F :
What a loss!
D :
With every question asked .
F :
That would have been invaluable .
D :
Now I'm misquoted, and they took their own tapes and changed it
around--put a psychiatrist on to listen to it ; they did all kinds
of things .
F :
Did they take it down themselves?
D :
But they changed it around . Mr . Salayo [?], who is now my ranch
foreman, but who was sixteen years in the legislature, helped me .
Just told me the other day, "Listen, Dudley, I was . against exposing
yourself on TV, but I heard every word of it, and I must say you
did a beautiful job ." I don-'.t think I contradicted myself too many
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 1 6
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 1 7
times . I made some mistakes . I got too far out in favor of McCarthy,
and I did do what every major candidate did that year, including
Yarborough . Yarborough said, "I'm against the forcible co-mingling
of races, et cetera ." And they asked me :if'I'm for or against
segregation, and I didn't say, "As a student of history, I know it
will change ." I said, "Yes, I'm for segregation . Segregation is
in the nature of your--"
F :
There wasn't a man running for office in 1954 who spoke-out--
D :
Except Doug Crouch . But I belabored the point . They started
arguing with me, and maybe I got impatient . And then I finally
said--Vin [?], who was in charge of it, this was experimental,
took me aside for just a second--
F :
Was that Bob Vin?
D :
Bob Vin . And he had run Francis Cherry, who was elected governor
of Arkansas, and he had elected Smathers senator .
Then he failed
to elect Lan [?] Smith over McCarthy . He said, "Listen, Dudley,
you've gone too far out with your Negroes . You're doing a fine
job, but with the Negroes, you're ruining all the hope ." And so
I modified it as tactfully as I could without contradicting myself .
And then with McCarthy, I didn't say that we should start
lining people up against a wall and shooting them, something like
that . But I did say that, "We have to be on our guard so Houston
isn't hydrogen-bombed through security loyalty errors . We've been
neglectful and he's alerting the country . And in alerting the
country, he's doing a good job ."
F :
You didn't see Johnson from the time he came down here in 1943 and
said that he appreciated your father's support until--
D :
Saw him in 1953 .
F :
In 1953 when he came back .
D : Yes .
F :
By that time then, you had run for the legislature .
D :
And was a member of the legislature .
F :
In 1952 .
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 1 8
D :
In 1952 I ran . A legislator was getting out, and a lot of people
asked me . In fact, I've never run for an office that I wasn't
asked to run for . Even against Johnson in 1953, I .was in Cuero, Texas .
There was an old man in a car that was a respected member of the
community, Thornton Hamilton was his name--he's dead--and he said,
"Dudley, why don't you consider running against Lyndon Johnson?
The country needs leadership desperately ." He didn't say I could
win . But I had a letter or so, and I got a telephone call from my
cousin Pat Tenant [?], and he said, "If you're running for Congress,
Dudley--" Did you know Pat Tenant?
F :
Yes, I knew Pat .
D :
He's a second cousin of mine .
He got on the telephone and said,
"Dudley, if you'll run for Congress, and I think you should, I'll
come over there and drink beer with different people and talk to
them and work for you ." I said, "I have a curious letter on my
desk, asking me to run against Lyndon Johnson ." He said, "Don't
do that, for God's sake! You'll find out that some of the people
that may ask you to run against Lyndon Johnson are evenly secretly
for Johnson themselves, and trying to find out how people stand ."
I'm losing my trend of thought a little bit . Do you want to
ask me another question?
F :
Had you had any contact with Johnson by mail or phone prior to this
September 1953 meeting?
D :
One letter, asking for drought relief .
F :
That was from you to him?
D :
From me to him . And then the form letter back .
F :
Putting it off on Eisenhower and not--
D :
Yes . That was some clerk's brilliant idea .
F :
You did this not as a private citizen, but as a state legislator
from this district?
D :
As a legislator .
F :
What did your district involve at that time--just Bee County?
D :
No . Bee, Karnes, Wilson . I got elected . I carried Bee and Karnes .
"°F :
Did you think you were going to make a career out of politics at
the time? Or did you realize that you were taking a long shot when
you gave up running for re-election for the state Senate to try
for the U .S . Senate?
D :
My advice was state senator or Congress, then wait eight years until
1960 when Johnson would then either be presidential or vice
presidential candidate, then run for the Senate . And that was my
thinking for a long time .
Now just why I got into it, back in the legislature there was a
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 1 9
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 20
lobbyist and he'd come around every day, and I'd ask who he
represented . I asked Spacek who I sat next to who did he represent .
And he says, "Oh, the big boys ." He was a little deaf and had a
hearing aid . And his secretary said, "You know, he's my godfather ."
I said, "Isn't that curious!" And then he came right at the end of
the session, and he said, "I've been asked to go to work for Hubert
Hudson--you've heard of Hubert Hudson ." Hubert Hudson was running
for Congress, and I moved to the Rio Grande Valley and worked for
him .
"But watching the legislature, I think you're the most
promising member, and I would like to go to work for you . Can you
do it?" And I said, "Do you have references?" And he said, "Yes,
Bob Harris," whom I knew--he was a cotton man--"and Judge Townes of
Houston," whom I knew.
I said, "Well, I don't know, Joe, whether I can or can=t or
shouldn't ." He says, "Where do you want to go?" I said, "Probably
the Congress . The action is in Washington, it's not here ." And he
said, "Well, Johnny Lyle is a good friend of mine," and so on .
I
said, :"I didn't say I was running for it or not running for it . . .
just eventually.
I'll try you experimentally ." And I never did
deduct him . I could have got a tax deduction and put him in as
picking up oil and gas leases, and he could have picked up some oil
and gas leases and been good at it . His name was Joe Garcia, finally
committed suicide .
But he'd come around and around . The man's dead now, but sometimes
he'd be annoying, be a nuisance, interrupt you when you were
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 2 1
doing things . Other times I was glad to talk to him . He'd tell me
about each little vote, it was a Swedish vote, or a Mason, or anti-Mason
vote, this, that, the other .
F : Is there a Catholic vote in this area?
D : Oh, sure . South Texas . Insofar as you can call a vote a vote .
When I ran for the legislature, there was a Baptist minister . I'm
still a Catholic, and I've been from the day I was born, and I will
be to the day I die . Very few people know it, but I've been knighted--
Knight of Malta--and that kind of thing, , Knight of the Holy Sepulchre .
But I don't go around wearing it--
F : In your lapel .
D : But there was a Baptist minister when I ran for the legislature, and
he went around to other Baptist ministers ; he'd tell them, "I want
you to vote for Dougherty ." They'd say, "He's a Catholic ." "But
he's the better man for the job than Holstein [?] . I know
him well ." Then they'd say, "Well, he's promising . How far do'you
want a Catholic to attain office? He'll go further ." This minister,
who's still around, he runs an office, his answer was : "One,of the
finest young men I've ever known in my life, and I'm not a bit
worried ."
And he took me a little later to a Baptist picnic, and they made
the talk--some of the hardest shells you ever heard of . But I
grasped their mentality, I understand them now .
F : Another slice of Americana .
D : And I picked up--there's a Lutheran vote . This old man that I beat
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 2 2
for the legislature, Holstein, who was an old Ferguson precinct,
worker--thought he knew everything--wouldn't speak to-m6 - for
two years after I
beat him .
But finally he came in my office and
he said, "Listen, Dougherty, I know you know government because I
read your reports back in Austin . And you not only get your Catholic
vote in Karnes County, you get the Lutheran vote . I don't know how
in the devil you get the Lutheran vote, but you do ."
F :
Did Senator Johnson as a rising young senator pay much attention
to the Texas Legislature during that period you were there? Did
he call people and suggest what they might do for him?
D :
I went to Stockdale in 1953-to make a speech for their watermelon
festival . It was a hot July day .
So I decided the best thing I
could do was not make a speech, and just say, "Stockdale's a wonderful
town," and so-on and so-on . I spoke for about three minutes and
sat down, and then I asked Garcia what was the effect of it . He
said, "They were damned glad you did that because they didn't want
to stand in the hot sun and hear a long speech ."
But Johnson sent a telegram to me . He was very careful to
send telegrams . But I think he had Jake Pickle or somebody like
that tend to matters in the legislature .
F :
Come around and make his wants known . Did he ever call you personally
while you were in the legislature .
D : 140 .
F :
Did you ever indicate to him that you might support him in 1954?
D :
Only in that letter asking for drought relief .
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 23
prestige abroad?" And his answer, "I have not been abroad, but I'll
tell you, I have no use for Fifth Amendment communists," whatever
amendment--loyalty questions . "And I think McCarthy is doing -ore
good than harm ."
F : Tell me about the September 1953 appearance he made-here .
D : Excellent tightrope walking .
F : Was this something he set up, was he invited to come, or what?
D : He went all over the state . He went a terrific pace .
F : Just kind of keeping his fences mended .
D : Yes, because he knew there was the 1954 election, :and he had the .
job in Washington, and clean packed Beeville, too [?] .
F : Where did you meet? Was the meeting here in the courthouse?
D : In the courthouse .
F : Outside?
D : No . Inside the county judge's offices .
F : What was it--an invited group?
D : Just the word passed around town, "Lyndon Johnson is here and he
will be glad to tai k ."
F : Did you have a full house?
D : Pretty full .
F : Were people pretty free with their questions?
D : Yes .
F : What-kind of questions were they asking him?
D : Well, I told you about the question he was asked by the idealist
or student [about] Senator McCarthy, "Don't you think he's harming our
F :
Was there any reaction to this, or did people feel very strongly
about McCarthy in 1954 here in Beeville?
D :
Here in town?
F : Yes .
D :
He was of great news value . He was perfect copy, and there was
always a story that McCarthy had done this, said that, so they read
about him as they would a celebrity .
F :
Did you ask any questions?
D :
I asked about the Bricker Amendment .
F :
What did Johnson say to that?
D :
That he was for something that later became the George Amendment .
He went on a little bit, and then I asked again, "Are you
sure they can't slip something through the Senate that's against the
Constitution?" And he said, "Oh, no, careful screening ."
F :
So that the Bricker Amendment wasn't anything to fear as far as he
was concerned .
D :
The Bricker Amendment failed by one vote short of two-thirds . And
like a friend of Joe Kennedy's asked Joe Kennedy why did Jack
Kennedy vote his way . And he said, ."Public opinion
wouldn't stand for it ." By that he meant public opinion and the
Democratic Party, not Massachusetts .
In Massachusetts they were
probably two-to-one for it . But I think the vote was 60 to 31 in
its favor, missing by one vote .
F :
Sometime between September 1953 and February 1954 when you announced,
you changed your mind about running . What induced you to change
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 24
your mind? Was it a combination of things?
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 2 5
D :
You mean about not running for what office?
F :
As late as September 1953, I presume you might have supported Johnson..
D :
After the conversation, I felt that I could either stay very quiet
or oppose him .
F :
Did you try to get anyone else to run?
D : No .
F :
Did you talk to people very widely about running, or did you keep it
more or less within your immediate circle?
D :
I didn't even talk .
F :
Did you try to set up any kind of statewide organization for either
financing or publicity?
D :
No . With a million dollars and a year's preparation, I :could have
run extremely well, as proved by Tower six years later .
F :
Did you have real hope of winning, or were you mainly trying to
highlight the issues?
D :
I thought he should be opposed . I went up to dew York City and I
went to the Harvard Club . There was a meeting--and I don't like
labels--but a meeting of highly intelligent reactionaries, if you
want to call them that, although one of them was R . R . Young, there's
a book about him, R . R . Young, Wall Street Popul ist, but he would
have been termed reactionary . And .i t was Mr . Bouvier, the fatherin-
law of Senator Kennedy, and it was Frank Knopt, who had a string
of newspapers, and it was Burton K. Wheeler, whose name still meant something
to me . And then some younger men, whose names I've forgotten .
And then two or three of them talked, and I didn't agree entirely
with them . Then one of them asked me to talk, "You're a member
of the legislature of Texas--what do you think?" Some of them
didn't like Jews and all that thing that I didn't agree with them
about . So I confined what I had to say to the folly of the Yalta-
Potsdam agreements, where the Manchurian railroad, the Kurile Islands,
the mass deportation of populations, the Baltic States, and so on .
Then I sat down, and they all cheered, and Railroad Young came
up to me and said, "Congratulations, young man, you make me proud
to be a Texan ." And then he later sent me a book with his name in
it, "Don't bother to acknowledge .
R . R . Young ."
When he took
his life, I was very sad, because I thought there was much greatness
in him .
F :
He was an unusual man, particularly in railroading .
D :
But in any field he chose .
F :
Did the success of your meeting up there--
D :
Made me feel that I could get financing from another group that
was not too closely associated with Texan politics .
F :
Was it much trouble setting up this talkathon?
D :
No, they came to me . You see, it was big news . There was supposed
to be no opponent to Johnson, and then they threw in a wealthy
millionaire rancher running against Johnson and the battle of
giants .
It got to the Miami papers, it got to the Minnesota papers,
it went world-wide over AP, INS, everywhere. So when Vin [?] came with
his idea, I thought I'd try it . My first impulse was to be very,
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 2 6
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 27
very silent, and just wait, but George Morri11,-one of my
attorneys, said, "Dudley, you just can't sit here . You
shouldn't have got in it, but since you're in it, let me set up a
meeting ."
So I went to Austin, and I met the usual Johnson enemies,
and some of them were invited and didn't come, some of them were
there . Hardy Hollers said he might come ; Senator Clint Small was
there . I had some relatives present .
F :
Dan Moody?
D :
Dan Moody, I talked to
I knew him anyway, and I flew from San
Antonio to Dallas with him--he and I flew from San Antonio to
Dallas . I talked to him for an hour, and he supported me . But I
met that group .
F :
Do you have any insight as to why Mildred bloody is so bitterly
anti-Johnson?
D :
Is Mildred the widow?
F :
Yes . She went beyond Dan in her distaste for Johnson, still does .
D :
I would have to know Mildred Moody .
I knew Dan, and I know Dan, Jr .,
let me put it that way .
F :
Did you know Nancy, incidentally?
D :
I knew Hubert, and I think I've met Nancy .
F :
Did you get any reaction at all out of the Johnson's camp when you
announced? Were they caught by surprise?
D :
Completely, and scared out of their wits, as Stuart Symington
told me--I met him at Los Angeles, I went over there and had breakfast
with him in 1960, .not at the convention but at a pre-convention big
dinner where they had Symington and Jack Kennedy, Johnson, Pat
Brown . And Symington told me, "I don't know you Dudley, but I know
one thing . You had Lyndon worried sick ." And as Sam Houston told
me later, "We knew you had the money .
We knew you had the ability .
We were scared to death ."
F :
You knew the people around Johnson then pretty well .
D :
Well, like Corridors to Power , C . P . Snow, and all that, I would
be able to reach him . Now, there was a modus vivendi and axis
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 28
between Allan Shivers and Lyndon Johnson, and when I got into it,
I wasn't too aware of it . So there was a man who flew--and since
he's a friend I won't name him--he flew down to Beeville in his plane,
and he was closer to Shivers than he was to Johnson, but he knew
both . He said, "Listen, Dudley, you'll spend three hundred thousand of
your own money . You'll lose . I know my politics .
I learned it from
Ferguson . And in those days we took the Katy railroad and divided
it . On the east side of the Katy railroad we actively campaigned ;
on the west we depended on a friend . That's not entirely true now,
but you know little of East Texas where the big vote is . And you
just can't do it ." He said, "I'm a family friend . I have oil and
gas interests in Refugio County ; partly my living is where your
living is . And if you don't want to stay behind the scenes, which
I really think you ought to do--that's the way your father did
things--if you want to get out actively in politics as an immediate
state senatorship and in five years"--he said five years--"Allan and so on
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 29
are looking for young men .
They think you have promise .
Allan likes
you and adores your wife ." My wife had been his receptionist . She
was a college girl with an English degree, and she got a job with
Allan .
F :
She went to the University?
D :
Went to the University .
F :
Who was she?
D :
Her name was Calhoun . But she was a Bluebonnet Belle there and had
her picture on the Cactus in 1948 or 1949, missed Phi Beta Kappa by
a couple of points--bright,' girl .
To finish this, I still haven't finished the question, but I
don't want to filibuster . To go on with this, he said, "Lyndon will
come to my ranch and he will meet you .
He regrets the brevity of
his conversation with you at the courthouse . Now, you've organized
this committee"--whatever it was, Americanism, I had taken the
MacArthur side and said the truce, which didn't prove to be true,
with North Korea wouldn't last and would spread to Indo-China,
which was true . But he said, "With this committee you can gracefully
yet out, say you have to work .for the committee . But Lyndon will
come to my ranch ; he'll fly in, and you talk to him ." And he said,
"I know my politics .
You can get money, and I know you're not
interested in money, and I wouldn't think much of you if you were .
But you can get everything for this area that your area needs,
and it needs a lot, I know . Take the state senatorship, and then
the governorship is a very definite possibility ."
I told that to somebody years later out of the Kennedy organization,
and he said, "I call that a good offer ." But I didn't do
it because way down, way down, way down deep in my, I guess you'd
call my--everybody's Anglo-Saxon WASP-Chicano, what have you, I
guess you'd call me Anglo-Irish by descent, and anybody who is
descended, no matter how corrupt they may seem to be or how wrong,
right at the bottom there is a little bit of an idealist, and I
could not do it . In addition to that, suppose I had been state
senator and then gone on to the governorship, if you could get a
Catholic governor elected and possibly you could .
But suppose I
had just told them [when] they wanted one thing, and I'd tell them,
"No, you're wrong . We're going to do it my way ." Then I'd be
through .
F :
Did you get the feeling that either Johnson or Shivers sent this man
to you, or was he acting on his own?
D :
Oh he had been sent . He had left Allan Shivers, and he had talked
on the telephone to Lyndon .
F :
Were there any other attempts to get you out of the race? I'm sure
you, among other things, you upset the whole rhythm of the--
D :
The whole plan, yes . There was more to the conversation than that .
He started out, "You're hurting the oil industry . That's your
living, the depletion allowance . And you're hurting Allan Shivers .
Then you'll have no chance . You'll spend three hundred thousand dollars ."
I don't think I spent quite that much, but I spent a lot of money that
I'll never see again . But I was thirty and I'm glad I did it .
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 3 0
F :
Was much made of your youth by the opposition?
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 3 1
D :
The answer was obvious . There was LaFollette . Who were the others?
LaFollette was a success . Rush D .-Holt of West Virginia, who
was a failure, but he was thirty as a senator .
F :
There were the founding fathers .
D :
The founding fathers, Jefferson--who else .
F :
Did they run a fairly clean campaign, or did they try to work you
over pretty hard?
D :
By rumor, and particularly in Dallas I'd pick up little anonymous
typewritten [notes], always left in my box--that kind of thing . But
all one can do is ignore that and go on .
F :
It wasn't more than just kind of the ordinary--
D :
It got a little out of the ordinary, there's no question, and it's
done to everybody; There's no question that from time to time they
either had an operator on the payroll or the telephones tapped and
that sort of thing . But that's all right .
I've long ago forgotten
that .
F :
Did you try very assiduously to raise money on the outside?
D :
I went to Houston, and the first man I saw was Jesse Jones .
Jesse Jones came down from the Lamar .
He was very friendly, sat
at his old desk, said, "I'm glad to see a young man try, we need it .
But Lyndon has a good record, and I'm with Lyndon this year . But
someday, son, you'll run for another office and you'll win ." He
was very courteous . I expected a hard, tight-fisted banker, but he
was not . He was a gentleman . And I later sent my wife over there
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 3 2
to talk to him because she can be very charming, and I thought she
might get him, but we couldn't .
And then I went to see Bob Smith . And Bob Smith changed the
subject . He said, "We've got to do something about the problem of
Duval County, and it has got to be done now . I know a great deal
about Duval County . I lived there," or, "I worked there," or something
. And then no reply .
Then I left Roy Cullen a note ; he wasn't in . He wrote me
back . "Senator Johnson has promised me that he will vote right, and
I can't help you ." I didn't make copies of the letter and send it
all around the state, as Coke told me to do, because the ol,d man
was a generous old man, for all his faults . But I did show it to
Roy Harrington, who was the head of AFL-CIO at the time .. I said,
"See, he tells you one thing and he
And let's see who else I saw .
i n Houston, and then I even went to
no respect for him since that day, because I thought maybe the old
man's trying to do something . But he said, "I'm sorry . I'm leaving
for Europe . I take no interest in politics ." That was his answer
to me .
F :
That doesn't quite square with his record, does it?
D : No .
F :
Did you contact Stevenson, or did he volunteer his--
D :
Coke Stevenson?
F : Yes .
tells Cullen another ."
I interviewed a lot of people
see H . L . Hunt . And I've had
D :
No, I went over to see him . I went over to see him, told him
about my experiences with Johnson . I told him that one uncle,
Dudley Tarlton, had been with Johnson against him, but that I
thought Johnson should be opposed, and why I was doing so . And he
said, "Yes, young man, you can make an intelligent race, but let
me tell you something . Get on something people can understand .
They don't understand what you're talking about .
Talk about Box 13 .
They understand Box 13 . It's not vengenace on my part, but they
will understand it ."
F :
Things like Bricker and McCarthy and so forth are too far off to the
average voter .
D :
Correct . Besides, Joe McCarthy and Lyndon had their own understanding .
Joe McCarthy left to make his speech in San Jacinto, and he , said,
"Lyndon, tell me . Do you want me for or against you? Which will
help you?" And they laughed .
And when some of my enthusiastic
following approached McCarthy, I wasn't there, but asked him to help
me, and he said, "Johnson's done nothing to me . Why should I interfere?"
But it was only after my conversation with Dan Moody, and by
this time I was running out of money . Now my mother kept large
sums of money in the bank, but I was not going to her .
F :
But you surely can eat it up in a hurry . You can eat up that kind
of money in a hurry .
D :
Well, I'd eaten up seventy-five to one hundred thousand dollars, fiftyseven
thousand dollars on the talkathon . And then my family helped .
My sister sent me five thousand dollars--both sisters . My mother
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 33
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 34
maybe another five thousand dollars . I told them this, because somebody
had come to them and told them, "You can't contribute by the Hatch Act ."
I said that if it does apply to primaries, which has never been, you
organize your committees and all that, but they didn't quite understand,
and I wasn't going to argue with them too much . I told them
the only federal intervention in primaries was this Nixon case, so
Negroes could vote in Democratic primaries in 1944 .
F :
You've got the problem in this state of being a large one and a very
populous one . It's not quite true, but there's a belief that you
almost have to run for state office twice before you can get it
the first time . Did you get the feeling at the conclusion of this
senatorial campaign that you had had enough statewide advertising
that if you wanted to come back in a future race you would stand
up pretty well, that this in a sense was a form of paid advertising
for [that]?
D :
It was .
But what it does to the candidate!
I don't see how Yarborough
stood it to go up and around the state time after time .
F :
I don't see how he looks so young at his age on that sort of business .
Did this pretty much work into a contest between you and Johnson, or
did the other state contests you feel have any effect?
D :
Everything got absorbed in Yarborough-Shivers . I had no East Texas
poll watchers, but thanks to some friends, I was able to go through
East Texas and even get a fairly good vote . But basically my
candidacy, as I said earlier, was regional . But I carried Jim Wells
County, including Box 13, which shows what people thought of what
went on there . But public memory is very short . I tried to get
it in positive terms . I had it up in Dallas by the underpass in the
interest of honest elections . But after my talk with Moody on the
plane between San Antonio and Dallas, I decided that corruption was
a better issue than Box 13, and I tried to make my issue corruption .
F :
You're talking about national corruption now .
D :
No . Johnson . KTBC advertising . Moody's speech that was printed
in Look .
F :
I don't remember that .
D :
It was printed in Look . He said it quite openly . I don't-know
whether it belongs to the ages for me to quote or not ; I sent out
a press dispatch .
F :
We can find it . Did Johnson ever answer any of these charges, or
did he pretty well ignore you?
D :
His next advice, as Sam told me, was ignore . But he came down, I
think, for a couple of graduations and things like that .
F :
But basically he would not take you on in a sort of confrontation?
D :
He had contradictory advice, and finally he decided not to come
down .
I wanted him to come down . I wanted him to come down very
much, and he very nearly came down .
F :
Did the polls show--I don't recall--a sliding voting trend in your
favor, or against you, or did they show anything, any change at all
from the time you first became an opponent?
D :
I was so active that I didn't look at polls . And when you get a poll,
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 35
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 36
you want to know where the poll was taken .
F :
That was the next thing I wondered . Did you get the feeling that
something like a Belden Poll--?
D :
I think he had a Belden in Nacogdoches, and I had been to Nacogdoches,
and I continued the talkathon in Nacogdoches on radio, not on
television--they had no television . And I'd get these questions,
"Why don't you fight?" In East Texas they like you to call the
opponent every name under the sun .
F :
They like Ralph Yarborough's style of waving your arms . ;(Laughter)
D :
But I could only be myself .
F :
Did you get the feeling that Johnson was getting national help, or
was he pretty well running a quiet enough campaign that it didn't
show?
D :
Oh, he had the use of the frank . There were constant letters . They
were like a C .O .D . telegram .
You'd get ' a franked letter from .a
congressman or a senator .
F :
That gives the incumbent an advantage, doesn't it?
D :
There were constant letters . I cut him off the reports on the radio .
F : How?
D :
I got called, and they said, "Johnson is saying this and that and
the other ." And I said, "When a man will tell, by Texas law,"--and
I read the Texas Election Code, or.some of it--"one other person
that hers a candidate for re=election, he becomes .a candidate .
According to Drew Pearson, he told Fulbright in 1952 that he couldn't
actively fully support or go all out for Adlai Stevenson in Texas
radios .
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 37
because he was afraid it would hurt his re-election chances in 1954 .
It was printed in the paper and he didn't deny it, so he is a
candidate ." So he quickly had to announce, and he got off the
F : Did the Republicans, who didn't amount to much in those days in
Texas except -in presidential elections, show any great
interest or try to assist you in this?
D : I had a letter from Orville Bullington of Wichita Falls that would
have taken about an hour for me to reply to, promising--there was a
large Republican vote in Democratic primaries . But I did not reply
to it because I did not have the time to reply to it . I had to be
here, there, and the other place .
Incidentally, the most prescient thing that I did was on
Houston TV . I was asked a question, "What about American intervention
to save the brave boys of Dien Bien Phu?" And I said, "Under no
circumstances should we send an army into Indochina . The terrain
is similar to Guadalcanal, which took six months to conquer, and was
a thousand miles square . No land war in Asia ." And they tried to
argue, "This is isolationism . Aren't you interested?" And I said,
"No ." And then I finally took the offensive on it . I had it, I think,
in the Houston Post . If you're further interested, I have a scrapbook
in Austin that you can look at .
F : Where is it?
D : Tommy Gee . Do you know Tommy Gee?
F : I know the name .
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 38
D : He has it in his office . I'll call you later .
But I took .the offensive . I said, "Is Senator Johnson in favor
of colonial wars," which in my opinion is partly the Vietnam war .
F : You could virtually dig that out and run with it now, couldn't you?
D : Yes, it's there, it's in a scrapbook .
F : Right . Do I understand that the Houston Post pretty well cut you
cold on this?
D : According to Vin . ` They had the big story . And then Oveta Culp
Hobby, according to the story, and I respect her--I do respect her--
she cut the story cold .' It was done in all the Houston papers .
F : Any insight why, because after all, she was a Republican cabinet
officer .
D : Oh, she has been for Roosevelt ; she's on the winning side . Her idea,
and I think she thinks it's good, was, "They're the outs . They're
the ins ." The only time she was out was under Kennedy . Henry Catto,
who is a friend of mine, and Jessica, I think had free access -
to the Johnson White House . I saw them in Washington shortly before
Nixon took over and Johnson was there, and they'd been to the White
House . Now he's ambassador to El Salvador . I haven't read the book,
but it's Corridors of Power, C. P . Snow--Ed Harte gave it to me . She
was director of the WACS, she went to England with Mrs . Roosevelt .
F : Did you and Johnson cross paths at all during the campaign?
D : No .
F : After the campaign was over, did you hear anything out of him?
D : I sent him a telegram . And then I got an inquiry, "Where is the
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 3 9
telegram," because I released it to the press . So I wrote him a
letter and said, "That's part of the frustrations of my recent
campaign against you . The telegram didn't get to the proper place,
but here it the telegram." And I said, "I don't carry grudges to
the next day," or something like that . Then he asked me to come
up to the Johnson City place .
F :
Was this pretty shortly afterwards?
D :
Yes, almost immediately afterwards . I started to do it, and then
I decided I couldn't do it .
F :
I've had people who were very close, particularly in local and
regional areas, tell me that they seem to think Johnson pays more
attention to his opponents than he does to his friends sometimes .
Did that become your experience? Did Johnson try to get you back
on his side?
D :
In 1959 he came to my ranch at my invitation and brought Lady Bird,
brought Congressman [John] Young .
F :
Why was he invited?
D :
Because he was in town, and what are you supposed to do! You're
wrong either way ; you're criticized .
F :
He's still a U .S . senator . You were talking about going out to the
ranch .
D :
Yes, he came . And we drank Scotch and sodas . Lady Bird first tried
to mix the Scotch and sodas, and he says, "That's not strong enough ."
And,,-he sent Easterling Davis, who is my driver, back and he made it
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 40
like Johnson wanted it . But he had a bunch of people with him, and
I only got to talk to him alone just a minute, and he did the talking
when I was alone . He just put his arm around me and said, "You and
I are going to be friends from now on, boy," or something like that .
F :
Did he give you any insight as to his 1960 plans?
D :
Oh, he was running for president then!
That was obvious .
F :
You mentioned earlier that you went to Los Angeles .
D : Yes .
F :
Did you go in an official capacity, or did you just go to be there?
D :
I went at the invitation of Jimmy !Meredith, who was a Symington
manager . He told me, "This-is all going to be decided by Pennsylvania .
If you want to help Stuart, fine ."
F :
Had you known Symington previously?
D :
No . I knew Jimmy Meredith . But he said, "We'll see how Pennsylvania
goes, and if it goes Kennedy, school's out ."
F :
Was there hope in the Symington camp, I -know there was in the
Johnson camp, that if they could stop Kennedy on the first ballot,
then maybe they could build from there?
D :
Deadlock Kennedy-Johnson, and then either Stevenson or Symington
would move in . In my opinion, I don't know Stevenson, but I know a
lady who went with Borden Stevenson and knew Adlai, and she really
dated Borden to talk to Adlai ; She said--
F :
I guess Borden would have been some kin to Pat Tenant [?], wouldn't
he, in a distant way?
D :
They said so . And Pat Tenant was all [for] Senator Taft and what have
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 41
you . And in spite of the divorce, Adlai came over to the house,
according to Pat Tenant, and visited them, and the relationship
was very distant . But Pat Tenant was so fascinated with Adlai
Stevenson that he became a liberal .
F :
I haven't seen that side of Pat .
D :
No, when I first knew Pat, I went to the University of Texas with
him.
F :
I knew him in those days .
D :
Well, the first time was 1942, and then he .went back in 1946 or 1947 .
And he was all "What a brilliant man Byrd is, how fortunate we are
to have Taft ." Those were his original opinions . We learn as we
go on . And I won't say that's the sole reason, but he was fascinated
with Adlai Stevenson, so he must have had a very brilliant
mind . Whether he would have made a good president or not, we'll
never know .
Now I was this much of a Democrat that in 1952 I got a call
from a man named Roger Stevens, who's in charge of the Kennedy
Memorial . I had already contributed to the Democratic campaign,
though I wasn't sure I could vote for Adlai Stevenson, through
Steven Mitchell [?] . And he said, "We', re trying to get Stevenson on
the television and radio to answer McCarthy's speech that he made
about him in Chicago, and we don't know what he's going to say ."
And of course, as Alben Barkley said, "The thunder came and the
lightning," but it never had the damaging information. I think he said
that he helped fly [Palmiro] Togliatti to Italy, but that was under
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 42
instructions, and maybe Togliatti, an Italian citizen, belonged in
Italy--I don't know . But I remember McCarthy's speech, "If I had
a club, I'd make a good American out of him ."
So I sent some money, and I'm not made out of money . In fact,
if you want to know the truth, I'm always scrimping and short for
cash . So I sent some money, I think a couple of thousand dollars,
up to Cleveland so Stevenson could answer McCarthy, to help . I did
do that much for the Democrats that year .
F :
Did the Johnson people solicit you for campaign funds in 1960?
D :
They sent Warren Woodward to see me . So without saying whether I
was for or against Stevenson, I paid Warren Woodward some money,
and it was by check, and it went through . I don't know exactly
the laws on contributions for potential nominees for president,
but it went through . And I told Lyndon on the telephone
when he first called me, "I'm going to run for
Congress this year ." Now why I didn't win Congress, I think in
retrospect is that I just didn't work . It's my fault, not his
fault, even though Cliff Carter came down there and interfered .
F :
You had the feeling though that if there was any help in that,
though, it went to John Young rather than to you?
D :
It did go to John Young . And Lyndon told me over the phone that
he'd be absolutely neutral .
F :
Do you think he was?
D :
Let him answer that .
F :
We'll do that . Incidentally, did he have any prior connection with
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 43
John Young?
D : Lyndon?
F : Yes .
D :
He came to my house with him. But anyway, I was not an effective
campaigner . And Yarborough told me over the telephone, he said,
"John Young frustrates and fights my Padre Island National Sea
shore . Just take that and you can win ." But I had so much contradictory
advice that I didn't do it . Now, open beaches made Bob
Eckhardt . I think I could have won if I had had the intelligence
to take the national seashore of Padre Island and make it my issue .
But they branded me "right wing extremist," and all that, and I
could show people that I could pick up labor unions and that I'm no
right wing extremist, though one goes through phases . I've been a
liberal, I've been a middle-of'the-roader, I've been a conservative
at various times in my life . The time, the place, the people
concerned .
F :
With your South Texas and Catholic background, did you get caught
up at all in these "Viva Kennedy" clubs, or were you too busy
running your own race?
D :
Oh, in 1960 I voted for Kennedy .
F :
After the primary did you actively campaign? After your congressional
primary?
D :
Oh, I went in Bee County at the local level to one Democratic rally .
F :
Did you ever have any personal contact with Kennedy?
D : Sure .
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 44
F : What was it?
D : I had lunch with him at the White House .
F : Why?
D : Pierre Salinger called me on the telephone and said, "Do you want
to come? Be there tomorrow at noon, and it's four p .m . now here ."
F : It's kind of hard to get from here to there .
D : So I took the "Red-Eye Special," got to Washington with my wife .
And in spite of the fact that I had sold La Prensa and I was out of
it, I found myself with a group of Texas newspaper men . They said,
"You're representing La Prensa ." So I said, "Fine ." So I called
the owner, and I said, "Is it all right for me to represent La
Prensa ?" I wanted everything done right . And he said, "Yes ."
F : Do you think that Kennedy thought you had real influence with the
whole, what we now call, Chicano element in Texas?
D : No, I don't think that was the reason . I had met Joe Kennedy, the
father .
F : Was that that time that Ted Dealey got up and made his statement?
D : Yes .
F : How did that go over?
D : Not very well .
F : How-did it go over with the Texas group?
D : It did not go over .
F : Just a breach of manners, wasn't it?
D : More than that . Ted Dealey sent me a telegram and said, "Reply
what you think of it collect ." So I sent him an eight-page telegram
back collect . I remember one of the things that I said is that
"There are very few opportunities that the President gets to hear
a conservative point of view from your point of view . You ruined
it all ."
F :
Did you get any reply from Dealey?
D :
No . But I said, "A man that has to worry about what General
De Gaulle is doing and what [Canadian Prime Minister John]
Diefenbaker is doing, the unemployment situation, that sort of
thing--he doesn't want to hear your riding Caroline's tricycle
while we're looking for a man on horseback ." Incidentally, Dealey
read it from a typewritten [copy] .
F :
He came prepared .
D :
He came prepared . He had a couple of Bloody Marys, but'.- it wasn't
that .
F :
Was the rest of the Texas delegation there rather embarrassed?
D :
Colonel Horner from the Light , as right-wing and as conservative a .
man as ever walked the face of the earth, I saw his reply, which
was, "You don't do that with a president ."
I remember, after I left there, and I asked Kennedy a couple
of questions--in fact, three . One was economic for Texas . I
said, "President Kennedy, the liquids, solids, and gases, you've
got the Federal Power Commission to regulate pipelines . Very soon,
natural gas will be liquefied and shipped in from other countries"
--as it is now . "What do you think of the regulation and all of
that?"
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 4 5
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 46
He said, "Well, FPC has a backlog of cases . We will correct
__
that ." And then he looked at Lyndon, who was surprised to see me
there, very definitely, and he says, "Natural gas is well represented
here by my father and by Lyndon," evading the whole point of
that question .
And then I didn't know whether to ask him about Alianza para
Progressa [Alliance for Progress] which was not off the ground,
never did get off the ground, or his Cuban problem . So I asked
him [about] the Cuban problem . He said, "I have called in every
bit of advice I could get, including General Douglas MacArthur .
Cuba is a major military operation ."
F :
Was this after the Bay of Pigs or before it?
D : Before .
F :
Before the Bay of Pigs .
D :
No, wait a minute, it was after .
It was 1962 . Shortly before the
missile crisis . And just before I was about to ask him about
Alianza para Progressa, here comes Dealey with his eight-page
prepared--I don't know what you want to call it, ultra-fascistic
or stupid, highly ignorant, discourteous, whatever you want to call
it . And Kennedy's reply is, "Mr. Dealey, I am the president, and
as the president, I'm perfectly safe . I'm safe, but I'd like to
see you three days after the third world war started .
I've seen
Marine divisions ready for battle, eager to go, and five days later
torn to shreds ." Then he looks at Salinger and says, "Discontinue
the Dallas News ." He said, "We can't discontinue another paper,"
and then laughed . He was not provoked . And Lyndon, by the way,
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 47
had left by that time . He was not there .
F : Had he taken much part, or had it been almost entirely Kennedy's
show at this luncheon? Had Johnson, while he was there, done more
than just--?
D : No, he talked to me, just whispered to me, "Glad to see you," or
something like that . He didn't take any part .
F : Did you see Johnson much during the sixties?
D : I went in his office when he was vice president, both my wife and
I did, shortly after he took office . And Mary Margaret mixed us
all a Scotch and soda--Mary Margaret Wiley [Valenti] . And we
talked a little while, and he said, "Where are you?" And I said,
"We're at the Hilton Hotel ." He said, "I'll do better for you than
that," and he got us a nice suite at the Shoreham . My last words
to him because I could tell, as I told Nixon too later--I ran into
the Nixons after his California defeat--in Rome, I said "Lyndon,
I think you'll be president yet ." And his answer was, "When I am,
I want you right there with me ."
F : I see . Did you ever see him again?
D : I walked in in July of that year, and gave him--
F : That same year, you mean?
D : That same year . He had the Pakistani ambassador, and I just put
a resume of a man that wanted a job, and saw that he was busy .
The man had been waiting around for Walter Jenkins so he could see
Lyndon, and I said, "That's not the way to go . The way to see
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 48
Lyndon is through Mary Margaret ." I said, "Hello, Mary Margaret ."
(Interruption)
Where were we?
F :
We were talking about that July meeting when you put the curriculum
vita on Johnson's desk .
D :
I put it in his pocket . I just said, "Hello, Lyndon ." He said,
"Do you know the Pakistani ambassador?" and I could tell he was
busy . I knew he could be seen through Mary Margaret at any time,
if he had the time.
F :
Did you ever yourself try to get any kind of federal appointment?
D :
After the Kennedy election, we talked about it, my wife
and I, and she said, "Let's go to Washington . Maybe
there's an ambassadorship or something, an appointive position that
you can get since you're a Democrat and you've worked with the
Democrats and you've contributed sometimes when I thought you
shouldn't have ." I went up there, and that's when I saw Lyndon as
vice president . . Lyndon said, "Patronage doesn't come through me .
I only have a veto . If it comes to me, I'll say there's no one
better ."
So I went to Yarborough, and Yarborough said, "I can't get you
an appointment as ambassador, Dudley .
I'll turn your name in for
Alianza para Progressa [Alliance for Progress] ." And my name was
turned in .
But I could tell that was in the middle of a big patronage
squabble, Johnson, Yarborough, God knows what else! I interviewed
the Kennedy bright young men, and they liked me .
F :
John Macy, maybe?
D :
Oh hell no! One of the real Mafia--I mean, one that had been with
Kennedy forever . I picked up an advance man for Kennedy in San
Antonio, and that's another longer story I'll tell you sometime .
Anyway, I had the "Corridor to Power" to the Kennedy Administration .
F :
Were you involved at all in that visit of Kennedy's in which he got
shot?
D :
No . I was asked, but I did not come . I was in New York . I was at
"21" in New York .
Another meal shot, huh?
Yes, it was . It was one o'clock . And somebody told me, "The
President has just been assassinated ." I said, "Don't give me that
stuff just because I'm from Texas . He may be unpopular there ."
He said, "No, he's dead ." My first reaction was it was some
fanatic, General Walker or something like that . I liked General
Walker ; he should never have been taken to Springfield . He came to
my office . I could tell he was not the man he once was, that was
true . I'm diverting .
F :
While you're diverting, had you known General Walker earlier?
D :
No, he just walked in . I just said, "I'm sorry, General, I'm
committed to some other candidate ."
F :
This was when he was running for governor?
D :
Yes .
"I will say this . I don't think the Overseas Weekly did you
right ."
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 4 9
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 50,
F :
I don't think Bobby Kennedy did him right either .
D :
I don't know what Bobby Kennedy did .
F :
He was the one who sent him up to Kirksville .
D :
Was it Kirksville?
F :
I believe it was . Missouri .
D :
Kirkwood, maybe . Did Bobby Kennedy do that? That's something I
consider--and I still consider myself a conservative--but I actually
joined the American Civil Liberties Union .
I don't know if I have
renewed the membership or paid the dues . Not only because of that,
but what was it, Mary K . Jones and the Department of Agriculture
that was shanghaied to a mental institution because she would not
let her boss's papers be turned over during the Estes scandal .
F : Right .
D :
Did you read Clark Mollenhoff? The Spoilers of Democracy?
F :
Yes . Did you have any connection at all with Johnson after he
became president?
D :
I saw Johnson only once . That was at a dinner called "The Al
Smith-Dinner," and he hurriedly read through a speech .
F :
In New York?
D :
Yes . That was the night when he had to be told about Walter
Jenkins .
F :
Oh, yes .
D :
And he wouldn't come until eight and I just saw him in a hurry .
Tape 1 of 1, Side 2
F :
Okay, we're in New York now .
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 51
D :
I just saw him at a distance . He said "Once Communism"--it was
prepared--"was monolithic.Now it is polycentric" and so on ." And then
he said, "Though I didn't know Al Smith and I wasn't old enough to
vote for him, I campaigned for him . You'll have to excuse me
because I can't read all the speech because of other pressing
matters ."
F :
Could you tell he was obviously agitated?
D :
Extremely so . That was the general message .
I'm not quoting him
there .
F :
The crowd must have had kind of one of those--
D :
I don't know what Cardinal Spellman, who was an intimate acquaintance
of mine, thought . Nelson Rockefeller took him aside and put
his arm around him . They tell me Walter was the nicest of all the
group around him . I think it's in one book, The Tragedy of Lyndon
Johnson .
F :
Did you know Walter?
D :
I met him once or twice .
F :
But you didn't know him well?
D :
No .
But then it was in the book, The Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson ,
one of the others--the general reaction of the office . "The
pressure of working under Johnson was each of us has his own way
of committing suicide ." I would have only the kindest things to
say about Walter .
F :
It has always been my feeling that Mrs . Johnson took the exactly
correct attitude on that, which was to admit the whole thing and
or
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 52
just treat it as a collapse .
D :
Who knows, and who in the devil are we to judge!
F : Right .
D :
I think Sam Houston Johnson in
his book, My Brother Lyndon , said
"Personally, I've always believed people are free to lead their own
lives ." The pursuit of happiness, if that's his life, though I
don't think he was a true deviate .
F :
Oh, no . I think this was just a case of a breakdown .
Did Alfred Steinberg see you, or did he just talk about you
when he was doing his book? [Sam Johnson's Boy]
D :
He confused--No, he never saw me . Never saw me in his life .
F :
He just picked up that--
D :
Picked up some talk in Washington . So did Evans and Novak . I
wrote Evans and Novak. And the reason the scrapbook is gone, I've
got this attorney writing MacMillan for future editions . I'm no
longer a public figure . I was at that time . But W . Lee O'Daniel
went around the state in fire engines .i n 1956, trying to make a
comback . I didn't .
F :
And they've got you doing it in 1954?
D : Yes .
F :
Did Evans and Novak make that same error?
D :
They made the same error .
F :
That's just slipshod research, isn't it?
D :
Well, they tell me--one friend of mine, Bob Wheeler, knows either
Evans or Novak fairly well, says, "He's a pretty good fellow, and
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 53
I'll go over and talk to him and correct it ."
F :
Novak married one of Johnson's secretaries . I forget her name right
now .
Did Johnson try to enlist you in the 1964 campaign?
D :
No, nobody asked me anything, and that was good because I agreed
with Francis B . Sayre : it was a choice between ignorance and
corruption . I'll tell you how little Goldwater realized what he'd
be up against . ;The day after the primary in which Johnson beat me--
I've got the figures somewhere, but anyway he said, "We hear Senator
Johnson is leading two-to-one . Let's hope it's three-to-one . This
is a victory for sound Americanism ." Barry Goldwater said that on
the floor of the Senate .
F :
Did the Republicans ever make any strong attempt to bring you into
their orbit?
D :
I very nearly joined the Eisenhower [campaign in] 1952 . When I was
asked to run for the legislature, I told one of the people asking
me, "Well, I may want to join the Republicans . Something has to
be done for the country, and done now . And is not Eisenhower the
man to do it?" But I had talked also to some of the Taft people,
and I saw they were getting into it, and they'd be suing one another,
and precinct arguments . Went to Chicago . And the answer this man
gave me was, "anything anywhere where you can do the most good ."
So I then determined that I belonged in the Democratic Party . I was
naturally there anyway .
F :
Yes, historically there .
D :
Historically there . It goes all the way back to Cleveland .
F :
Before we quit, I want to get that record turned on and get it on
this tape .
D :
The only reason I'm playing it is, one, that it is very clever, and
they want to tell the story that they bluffed me out of making
Box 13 the issue and I did not . I used it .
F :
Before we go on that, did you commission the record, or did someone
just bring it to you? How did it come into being?
D :
It was brought to me .
(record plays)
"Last time Lyndon ran for the Senate,
He was trailing behind for awhile,
But the votes of Duval's dear departed
Helped push Lyndon ahead that last mile .
He's the darling of Duval County,
He's Duval County's bright shining star .
FDR couldn't put Lyndon over,
The man who did that was George Parr .
From the Senate they say Lyndon's leaving,
Old Boss Parr will be shedding many a tear,
But they cleaned up the polls in his county
And he can't help out Lyndon this year .
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 54
Lyndon's still the darling of Duval County,
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 55
put an advertisement in 1965 in the San Antonio'Light .
But this time the voting will be strict,
When they can't count the votes in the graveyard,
Old Lyndon is sure to be licked ."
F : Tell me one other thing about the record . Was it played all over
the state?
D : No, just in South Texas .
F : Did you have quite a number of copies of it made?
D : Jon Ford called it the funniest gimmick of the campaign .
F : I think it's a good record, great record .
D : I don't know that it's clear, that people can hear it .
F : Oh, I think they can make out the lyrics all right . I don't think
that's any problem .
D : I was asked to go to Alice and make my last talk there . And I just
said, "I can't do it . I'm going to make my TV appearance in
Dallas ." They said, "What should we tell them?" I just said,
"Tell them under no circumstances would I accept an office under
the methods that Senator Johnson did . I'd want it definite that I
was elected ."
F : You were, as we've established, an early opponent of the U .S .
intervention in Indochina . Did you make your views known as you
came down toward 1968?
D : I did . I did before that . I wrote letters to the editor, I even
F :
Did you get much reaction from it, one way or another?
D :
About eighty letters .
F :
Pro or con? Who wrote you?
D :
Largely pro . I don't have them anymore .
F :
I wondered if there were any kind of classification of person who
answered that .
D :
I just wasn't able to check .
F :
Did anyone ever urge you to run again?
D :
I ran for Congress in 1960 and lost . I've had many, many, many
problems . Perhaps someday I'll run for another office .
F :
Did you have any inkling with the group you know that Johnson
wasn't going to run again in 1968?
D :
I felt that he not only had to get out, but that he had to get out
that night--that Wisconsin was coming up .
He would lose that .
Counting the Republican vote in New Hampshire that McCarthy got,
McCarthy actually got more votes than Johnson . Daley could not
control his delegates, and it would have been lost to Bobby Kennedy,
and he knew it . And I think possibly considerations of health .
F :
Did you go to the Chicago convention in 1968?
D :
Oh, no .
F :
Did you get the feeling, to kind of sum up, that your campaign in
1954 modified any of Johnson's opinions or activities, made him
change his attitudes or his procedures any? Could you see an impact
that you had, other than to make him work harder than he intended
to?
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 56
DOUGHERTY -- I -- 57
who were against the Bricker Amendment at the time, saying that in
the test of time we should have had it to avoid the Gulf of
Tonkin type of thing .
D : I think that it changed him on Indochina for a little while . He
made one speech, I think, "We can't be like Mr . Chamberlain ; we
can't ignore Dien Bien Phu," and then he shut up . But he and Nixon
agreed on the subject .
F : Anything else you think we ought to add to this story?
D : There could be, but now I've gone through a couple of hours, and
I've reached the point of exhaustion upon interrogation .
F : All right .
D : I might say that when Kennedy was killed, I sent a telegram to
Johnson and I got an engraved reply--"Thank you for your consideration
." It was only after he got into Vietnam that I began to
oppose him again very actively . And Evans and Novak said that I
emerged from relative obscurity to advocate his impeachment . I
did not . There was one telegram and one letter to the editor .
And the letter to the editor said, "President Johnson risks
impeachment if he continues to pursue this course with Fulbright
and so on so antagonistic ." There's a lot of difference between that
and advocacy .
F : Did you get the feeling that the Bricker Amendment might have
headed off something like the Tonkin Resolution, or do you think
that was--?
D : I've heard that said . I've heard that said quite often by people
F :
Well, thank you .
D :
Thank you, and Happy New Year .
[End of Tape 1 of 1 and Interview I]

Al Gonzalez Community and Education Center.: There's no need to tell Al Gonzalez about divine intervention

2006-07-29T01:35:00.000-07:00

Al Gonzalez Community and Education Center.: There's no need to tell Al Gonzalez about divine intervention

watt texas politicos are finally getting pist?

2006-07-21T02:05:00.000-07:00

MORE National
Chilly reception for Bush in first NAACP speech
Cornyn decides Voting Rights Act changes doomed
Tropical Storm Beryl hits Massachusetts
PAC tied to DeLay fined, shutting down
Drug errors kill more patients than estimated
Molesters may be listed on Internet
Cubans allowed into U.S. to testify
SEARCH RESULTS
Senate backs child molesters database
War talk begins as Congress convenes
What is wrong with this picture?
Part 4: Death penalty reforms sought
Data vendors help unmask pedophiles
Backlog of DNA testing may have hurt public
DNA casts doubt on 2001 child molestation case
'Win at all costs' is Smith County's rule, critics claim
Lay gave list of favored names to White House for energy panel
Josiah Sutton: One Year Later
National

July 21, 2006, 12:38AM
Molesters may be listed on Internet
Senate bill also calls for a death sentence when a child is murdered

By LAURIE KELLMAN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Convicted child molesters would be listed on a national Internet database and would face a felony charge for failing to update their whereabouts under a bill the Senate approved Thursday.

The bill was designed to help police find more than 100,000 such sex offenders by creating the first national online listing available to the public and searchable by ZIP code. It also called for harsh federal punishment for sexually assaulting children, including the possibility of the death penalty when a victim is murdered.

The Senate approved the measure on a voice vote. The House is to consider it next week, and President Bush is expected to sign the bill into law.

"Sex offenders have run rampant in this country and now Congress and the people are ready to respond with legislation that will curtail the ability of sex offenders to operate freely," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah., who authored the legislation with Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D.

"We track library books better than we track sex offenders. This evens the score," said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., a sponsor in the House.

Debate was tearful from the start as the Senate considered the bill named for Adam Walsh, the murdered son of America's Most Wanted host John Walsh. He watched from the gallery as senators thanked him for years of lobbying for the bill.

"This has to be bittersweet for him," said Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., choking up as he made a rare reference to his daughter Amy, killed in a 1972 car crash.

Child advocates have called the bill the most sweeping sex offender legislation to target pedophiles in years. It would:

•Establish a comprehensive federal DNA database of material collected from convicted molesters.
•Provide federal funding for states to track pedophiles using global positioning devices.
•Allow victims of child abuse to sue their molesters.

Nueces De La Parra: WATT a CROCK of CCCT / 6 News Media Propaganda

2006-06-22T22:04:00.000-07:00

Nueces De La Parra: WATT a CROCK of CCCT / 6 News Media Propaganda

Armstrong Ranch: A 20-gauge shotgun worth $2,073 that Katharine Armstrong and 10 other friends gave to Karl Rove

2006-06-17T20:50:00.000-07:00

Armstrong Ranch: A 20-gauge shotgun worth $2,073 that Katharine Armstrong and 10 other friends gave to Karl Rove

meru another lady/movida "over reached"

2006-06-11T01:52:00.000-07:00

Send this document to a colleague
why would the "other side" obtain/have/proof the utilization of access to a "private" $bc/at&t
TELEPHONE CONVERSATION$$$???????????????????????????

LIKE NELLY SAYS-"MUST B THE MONEY"

TALK ABOUT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF LOYALTY!

"VISA-it's everywhere u want to b"

TOO BAD YOU CAN NOT TRUST "other side" to play bye the rules but that is where the "delay" makes you PAY!

Close This Window
var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0
var WPFootnote1 = ' Appellees do not argue that the Hastings case is subject to this limitations defense. Therefore, ourreview of this ground for summary judgment is limited only to the Tomlinson case.'
var WPFootnote2 = ' “Admission by Conduct” has been defined as “a wrongdoing committed by a party, in connectionwith its case, that amounts to an obstruction of justice and that gives a factfinder reason to believe that theparty thinks its case is so weak that it perhaps cannot be won without resorting to improper means.” Am.Maint. & Rentals, Inc. v. Estrada, 896 S.W.2d 212, 224 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, vacated pursuantto settlement) (quoting McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co., 779 F.2d 916, 922 (3rd Cir. 1985)). A party’sinfluencing of a witness to obtain favorable testimony is an admission by conduct regardless of whether it isaccompanied by bribery, intimidation, cajolery, or resort to sentiment. McQueeney, 779 F.2d at 922.'
var WPFootnote3 = ' We note that in their reply to appellant’s response to their motion for summary judgment, appelleesassert that appellant has failed to identify a misrepresentation that was false when made. However, appelleescannot rely on their reply to appellant’s response to provide the requisite specificity required by a rule 166a(i)motion. Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. v. Killam, 53 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2000, pet. denied) (citingMcConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex. 1993)); Michael v. Dyke, 41 S.W.3d746, 751 n.3 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); see also Judge David Hittner & Lynne Liberato,Summary Judgments in Texas, 54 Baylor L. Rev. 1, 8-9 (2002). Appellees’ assertion that appellant has failedto identify a misrepresentation that was false when made should have been addressed in a separate rule166a(i) motion.'
function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "" );
floatwnd.document.close();
floatwnd.focus();
}
}
function WPHide( WPid )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'hidden'" );
}
span.WPParaBox
{
padding: 0px;
width: 100%;
margin: 0px;
display: block
}
div.WPParaBoxWrapper
{
padding: 0px;
float: left
}
p
{
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 1px
}
span.WPFloatStyle
{
visibility: hidden;
position: absolute;
left: 10px;
right: 10px;
background-color: rgb(255, 255, 225);
border-width: 1px;
border-style: solid;
border-color: black;
margin-top: 25px;
padding: 6px;
line-height: normal
}
span.WPNormal
{
font-family: "Univers Medium", sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt;
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal;
font-variant: normal;
text-align: left;
text-decoration: none;
color: black;
vertical-align: middle;
text-indent: 0in
}
body
{
font-family: "Univers Medium", sans-serif;
font-size: 12pt;
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal
}
NUMBER 13-01-00556-CV

COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

ARTHUR MERU, Appellant,
v.
ALBERT HUERTA, STEVE HASTINGS,
DOUG ALLISON, AND GUY ALLISON, Appellees.

On appeal from the 319th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

O P I N I O N
Before Justices Hinojosa, Yañez, and Castillo
Opinion by Justice Hinojosa
Appellant, Arthur Meru, sued appellees, Albert Huerta, Steve Hastings, Doug Allison, and Guy Allison, for breach of contract and misrepresentation. Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, and the trial court granted the motion without specifying the ground or grounds relied on for its ruling. In four issues, appellant contends the trial court erred in granting the motion. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Appellant asserts that: (1) he was employed by appellees as an investigator and legal assistant from 1984 to 1997; (2) his duties included investigating current and potential cases and interviewing witnesses, family members, and other key individuals; (3) in addition to his base salary, appellees agreed to pay appellant a bonus, contingent upon the successful outcome of the cases on which he performed legal assistance and investigative services; and (4) the practice of paying bonuses in addition to base salary was common for appellees. Appellant claims he is owed compensation for the “Tomlinson” and “Hastings” cases.
When we review the granting of a motion for summary judgment, we determine whether the trial court granted the motion on traditional or “no-evidence” grounds. Hamlett v. Holcomb, 69 S.W.3d 816, 818 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). This distinction must be made to avoid improperly shifting the burden of proof. Id. at 819.
A. No-Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment
Without asserting further specificity, appellees stated the following as their first ground for summary judgment:
Rule 166a(i).

Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a litigant has the right to demand that his opponent show evidence as to the essential elements of his claim. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i).

Defendants demand, pursuant to Rule 166a(i), that Plaintiff show evidence at this time.

A party filing a motion for summary judgment under rule of civil procedure 166a(i) must fulfill certain specific procedural requirements. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i); Oasis Oil Corp. v. Koch Ref. Co. L.P., 60 S.W.3d 248, 252 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2001, pet. denied). A no-evidence motion for summary judgment must state the elements of the claim as to which there is no evidence. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(i). This requirement is strictly construed. Michael v. Dyke, 41 S.W.3d 746, 751 n.3 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). Rule 166a(i) does not authorize conclusory motions or general no-evidence challenges to an opponent’s case. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a cmt.; Oasis Oil, 60 S.W.3d at 252.
Appellees’ motion for summary judgment does not state the elements of the claim as to which there is no evidence. Appellees’ demand “that Plaintiff show evidence at this time” is nothing more than a “conclusory” motion or “general” no-evidence challenge, which the rule specifically prohibits. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a cmt; see also McConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 342 (Tex. 1993); Freedom Communications, Inc. v. Brand, 907 S.W.2d 614, 618 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1995, no writ) (motion that fails to present grounds is legally insufficient as a matter of law). Therefore, we hold that appellees’ no-evidence motion for summary judgment is insufficient as a matter of law and did not impose a duty on appellant to respond.
Where a motion for summary judgment does not strictly comply with the requirements of rule 166a(i), it will be construed as a traditional summary judgment motion. Michael, 41 S.W.3d at 750. Therefore, we construe appellees’ motion as a traditional motion for summary judgment and review it accordingly.
B. Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment
We review the granting of a traditional motion for summary judgment de novo. See Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc., 875 S.W.2d 695, 699 (Tex. 1994); Alejandro v. Bell, 84 S.W.3d 383, 390 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). To prevail, the moving party has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470, 471 (Tex. 1991). In deciding whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, evidence favorable to the nonmovant will be taken as true, and all reasonable inferences made, and all doubts resolved, in his favor. Am. Tobacco Co. v. Grinnell, 951 S.W.2d 420, 425 (Tex. 1997). Summary judgment is proper if the movant disproves at least one element of each of the plaintiff’s claims or affirmatively establishes each element of an affirmative defense to each claim. Id.; Branton v. Wood, 100 S.W.3d 645, 646 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.). A defendant moving for summary judgment on an affirmative defense has the burden of conclusively establishing that defense. Velsicol Chem. Corp. v. Winograd, 956 S.W.2d 529, 530 (Tex. 1997). The nonmovant has no burden to respond to a traditional motion for summary judgment, unless the movant conclusively establishes its cause of action or defense. M.D. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22, 23 (Tex. 2000).
When a trial court’s order granting a motion for summary judgment does not specify the ground or grounds relied on for its ruling, the appellate court will affirm the summary judgment if any of the theories advanced in the motion are meritorious. Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Tex. 2001); Boren v. Bullen, 972 S.W.2d 863, 865 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.). Likewise, where the order granting the summary judgment does not state the grounds upon which it was granted, the nonmovant must show on appeal that each independent ground alleged is insufficient to support the summary judgment. Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119, 121 (Tex. 1970); Williams v. City of Dallas, 53 S.W.3d 780, 784 (Tex. App.–Dallas 2001, no pet.).
1. Limitations Defense
As their second ground for summary judgment, appellees asserted that appellant’s claim for compensation in the Tomlinson case was barred by limitations. In his third issue on appeal, appellant contends that appellees did not establish their limitations defense as a matter of law.
Appellant filed his original petition on December 17, 1998. Appellees argue that because the Tomlinson case settled in 1993, and both breach-of-contract and misrepresentation causes of action are subject to a four-year limitations period, appellant’s causes of action as to the Tomlinson case are barred by limitations.
if( bInlineFloats )
{
document.write( '' );
document.write( WPFootnote1 );
document.write( 'Close' );
document.write( '' );
}

Appellees do not argue that the Hastings case is subject to this limitations defense. Therefore, ourreview of this ground for summary judgment is limited only to the Tomlinson case.Close See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.004(a)(3)-(4) (Vernon 2002).
By moving for summary judgment on their affirmative defense of limitations, appellees had the burden to conclusively establish the applicability of the defense. See Zale Corp. v. Rosenbaum, 520 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex. 1975). As part of this burden, appellees had to establish as a matter of law the date upon which limitations commenced. See KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746, 748 (Tex. 1999); Salazar v. Amigos Del Valle, Inc., 754 S.W.2d 410, 412 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1988, no writ). The issue of when a cause of action accrues is a question of law for the court. Moreno v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 787 S.W.2d 348, 351 (Tex. 1990).
In support of their limitations argument, appellees presented the affidavit of Steve Hastings as summary judgment evidence. Hastings’ affidavit states that the Tomlinson case was settled in 1993. Appellant subsequently filed a certified copy of an order which showed that the Tomlinson case was dismissed by the 117th District Court of Nueces County on November 29, 1994.
The date the Tomlinson case settled is not the date when any alleged contract was breached or when any fraud was discovered. See Pickett v. Keene, 47 S.W.3d 67, 77 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.) (statute of limitations on a claim for breach of contract begins to run only when the injured party elects to treat the contract as terminated); In re Estate of Herring, 970 S.W.2d 583, 587 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1998, no pet.) (statute of limitations does not commence to run until the fraud is discovered or until it might have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence). A cause of action generally accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when facts come into existence that authorize a claimant to seek a judicial remedy. Johnson & Higgins of Tex., Inc. v. Kenneco Energy, Inc., 962 S.W.2d 507, 514 (Tex. 1998); see also Atkins v. Tinning, 865 S.W.2d 533, 535 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1993, writ denied) (cause of action for breach of contract accrues, not at formation of contract, but at breach itself). Appellees failed to present any evidence establishing when they received their share of the settlement proceeds from the Tomlinson case. Thus, appellees failed to establish as a matter of law when appellant’s claims accrued. See KPMG Peat Marwick, 988 S.W.2d at 748; Salazar, 754 S.W.2d at 412.
Accordingly, appellees failed to conclusively prove each element of their affirmative defense of limitations. See Winograd, 956 S.W.2d at 530. We conclude that the trial court could not have appropriately granted summary judgment on this ground. Appellant’s third issue is sustained.
2. Judicial Admission of No Claim
As their fourth ground for summary judgment, appellees asserted that appellant had attempted to obtain perjurious testimony to support his contract claims, and that such conduct amounts to an admission that his claims are without merit.
if( bInlineFloats )
{
document.write( '' );
document.write( WPFootnote2 );
document.write( 'Close' );
document.write( '' );
}

“Admission by Conduct” has been defined as “a wrongdoing committed by a party, in connectionwith its case, that amounts to an obstruction of justice and that gives a factfinder reason to believe that theparty thinks its case is so weak that it perhaps cannot be won without resorting to improper means.” Am.Maint. & Rentals, Inc. v. Estrada, 896 S.W.2d 212, 224 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, vacated pursuantto settlement) (quoting McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co., 779 F.2d 916, 922 (3rd Cir. 1985)). A party’sinfluencing of a witness to obtain favorable testimony is an admission by conduct regardless of whether it isaccompanied by bribery, intimidation, cajolery, or resort to sentiment. McQueeney, 779 F.2d at 922.Close In his fourth issue on appeal, appellant challenges appellees’ assertion that appellant judicially admitted his claims are without merit.
In support of their assertion, appellees presented the transcript of a telephone conversation between appellant and his former girlfriend, Priscilla Lopez. The transcript apparently references a prior conversation in which appellant tried to obtain a statement from Lopez to support his prospective lawsuit against appellees for breach of contract.
In their summary judgment reply brief, appellees argue that appellant’s conduct amounted to spoliation of evidence. Specifically, they contend that by seeking to induce Lopez to perjure herself to bolster his claims, appellant despoiled his case, or, stripped it of value. Appellees assert that they have raised a fact question as to spoliation, and because appellant has failed to rebut that presumption, appellees should prevail as a matter of law on their spoliation defense.
Spoliation of evidence, by its nature, is an evidentiary question. Thus, the question of whether appellant despoiled his evidence is better remedied within the context of the core cause of action in the form of sanctions or a spoliation presumption jury instruction. See Trevino v. Ortega, 969 S.W.2d 950, 954 (Tex. 1998) (Baker, J., concurring). We refuse to transform a sanctionable act or presumption into a conclusively established fact for summary judgment purposes. Kang v. Hyundai Corp. (U.S.A.), 992 S.W.2d 499, 502 (Tex. App.–Dallas 1999, no pet.) (spoliation is not a proper ground for a 166a(c) summary judgment because it does not relieve a defendant from the burden of negating at least one essential element of each claim pleaded as a matter of law). Therefore, we hold that appellees’ spoliation argument, and accompanying proof, is insufficient to sustain summary judgment because it fails to disprove at least one element of either of appellant’s claims. See Branton, 100 S.W.3d at 646. Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court could not have appropriately granted summary judgment on this ground. Appellant’s fourth issue is sustained.
3. Failure to Establish a Claim
a. Misrepresentation
In his first issue on appeal, appellant contends that appellees’ summary judgment proof does not address his misrepresentation cause of action. Appellees argue that their “rule 166a(i) motion” addressed appellant’s misrepresentation cause of action and that appellant had the burden to present evidence of the alleged misrepresentation. However, we have already held that appellees’ motion is insufficient as a matter of law because it fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 166a(i).
In a traditional motion for summary judgment, the moving party has the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Lear Siegler, Inc., 819 S.W.2d at 471. After reviewing the record, we conclude that appellees failed to produce any evidence regarding appellant’s misrepresentation cause of action. Accordingly, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on appellant’s misrepresentation claim.
if( bInlineFloats )
{
document.write( '' );
document.write( WPFootnote3 );
document.write( 'Close' );
document.write( '' );
}

We note that in their reply to appellant’s response to their motion for summary judgment, appelleesassert that appellant has failed to identify a misrepresentation that was false when made. However, appelleescannot rely on their reply to appellant’s response to provide the requisite specificity required by a rule 166a(i)motion. Callaghan Ranch, Ltd. v. Killam, 53 S.W.3d 1, 4 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2000, pet. denied) (citingMcConnell v. Southside Indep. Sch. Dist., 858 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Tex. 1993)); Michael v. Dyke, 41 S.W.3d746, 751 n.3 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.); see also Judge David Hittner & Lynne Liberato,Summary Judgments in Texas, 54 Baylor L. Rev. 1, 8-9 (2002). Appellees’ assertion that appellant has failedto identify a misrepresentation that was false when made should have been addressed in a separate rule166a(i) motion.Close Appellant’s first issue is sustained.
b. Breach of Contract
As their third ground for summary judgment, appellees asserted that appellant was unable to establish his claim for breach of contract because he had neither pleaded nor produced any evidence of a sum certain amount owed to him. In support of this assertion, appellees presented specific portions of appellant’s deposition where he testified that he was supposed to have received “close to . . . six hundred thousand” for the Tomlinson case and “somewhere in the neighborhood of a million dollars” or “double the amount of what [he] was supposed to receive in the Tomlinson case” for his work on the Hastings case. Appellees asserted that any alleged oral agreement could not be enforced due to indefiniteness of material terms.
In his second issue on appeal, appellant contends that the summary judgment evidence created a genuine issue of material fact concerning his agreement with appellees. Thus, appellant argues, the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment on the issue.
Whether parties intended to enter into a binding contract is generally a question of fact. Farah v. Mafrige & Kormanik, P.C., 927 S.W.2d 663, 678 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ). However, whether a particular agreement is an enforceable contract is generally a question of law. Id.
It is well established that the terms of an oral contract must be clear, certain and definite. Gannon v. Baker, 830 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied). “A contract must be sufficiently definite in its terms so that a court can understand what the promisor undertook.” T.O. Stanley Boot Co. v. Bank of El Paso, 847 S.W.2d 218, 221 (Tex. 1992). A contract will fail for indefiniteness if evidence is not presented on all essential terms. See id. at 221-22. If an alleged agreement is so indefinite as to make it impossible for a court to fix the legal obligations and liabilities of the parties, it cannot constitute an enforceable contract. Engelman Irrigation Dist. v. Shields Bros., 960 S.W.2d 343, 352 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1997), pet. denied per curiam, 989 S.W.2d 360 (Tex. 1998). In order for a court to enforce a contract, the parties must agree to the material terms of the contract. T.O. Stanley Boot Co., 847 S.W.2d at 221. To be legally binding, the parties must have a meeting of the minds and must communicate consent to the terms of the agreement. Smith v. Renz, 840 S.W.2d 702, 704 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1992, writ denied).
Appellant contends that in addition to his base salary, appellees agreed to pay him a bonus, contingent on the successful outcome of the cases on which he performed legal assistance and investigative services. Appellant asserts that he is unable to establish an exact amount of money owed to him because of the nature of the means by which he was given such bonuses in the past – part cash, part luxury goods, part rent-free housing, and part loans that were forgiven or repaid by appellees. Appellant says that the total value of the bonuses owed to him is “close to . . . six hundred thousand” for the Tomlinson case and “double the amount of what [he] was supposed to receive in the Tomlinson case” for his work on the Hastings case.
Appellant contends that the summary judgment evidence establishes a course of dealing between the parties that evidences an oral agreement to pay him bonuses for his work on the Tomlinson and Hastings cases. In his affidavit, appellant states that it was common practice for appellees to promise and pay appellant and other employees substantial bonus payments in addition to their salaries for work on specific cases. He says that payments typically were made over a period of months, rather than in one lump sum immediately after the firm received its share of a settlement or judgment. Appellant evidences partial performance of the alleged agreement by his receipt of $25,000, an automobile, and a boat of his choosing as a bonus for the work that he performed on the Tomlinson case. Appellant also presented relevant portions of the depositions from appellees Albert Huerta, Steve Hastings, and Guy Allison to show that this practice of paying bonuses was consistent with a course of dealing between the parties and other employees over many years.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant, we conclude that any alleged agreement was, at most, a contingent agreement to agree. An agreement to make a future contract is enforceable only if it is specific as to all essential terms, and no terms of the proposed agreement may be left to future negotiations. Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist. v. City of Fort Worth, 22 S.W.3d 831, 846 (Tex. 2000). An agreement to enter into negotiations in the future cannot be enforced because the court has no means to determine what sort of contract the negotiations would have produced. Central Tex. Micrographics v. Leal, 908 S.W.2d 292, 296-97 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1995, no writ). The record here is devoid of any agreement or promise to pay a sum certain to appellant in the future as a bonus for services rendered to appellees. It is undisputed that the amount of any bonus was never determined by the parties. Further, appellees have shown that any alleged agreement to pay their employees a bonus was gratuitous in nature and contingent on the successful outcome of their lawsuits. Because the amount of any bonus was indefinite at the time of the alleged agreement, such amount was open for future negotiation or discretion. It is well-settled law that when an agreement leaves material matters open for future adjustment and agreement that never occur, it is not binding on the parties and merely constitutes an agreement to agree. Fort Worth Indep. Sch. Dist., 22 S.W.3d at 846.
We hold that appellees have conclusively established there existed no enforceable oral contract to pay a future sum certain as a bonus. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on appellant’s breach-of-contract claim. Appellant’s second issue is overruled.
We affirm that part of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment on appellant’s breach of contract claim. Because appellees’ “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment is legally insufficient and because appellees failed to produce any evidence regarding appellant’s misrepresentation claim, we reverse that part of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment on appellant’s claim for misrepresentation. Accordingly, we remand appellant’s misrepresentation claim to the trial court for further proceedings.

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA
Justice
Opinion delivered and filed this the
20th day of May, 2004.

barrio report

2006-06-04T05:38:00.000-07:00

hejola report for 05092006Posted on May 9, 2006 at 09:34:22 AM by cchwnn:Cchwnn: hejola report from Monterey mexico. 05062006 Once again raza como estan I am johnnie el quemon live from Monterey. Its real beautiful down here and the weather has been great. The food is great, the people are great and la onda chicana is doing great. Now lets go to our command post for todays barrio headline news: An increase of naked people in the hood. Vato gets arrested for dui. And finally, el primo henry p garica fails bar exam. One can not say que el primo henry p.Garcia never gives up. El primo graduated from law school about ten years ago and has failed the barrio bar exam at least 75 times. He has now being practices law in the hood and has joined forces con los abogados del Westinghouse barrio mall. Last year before joining this law firm he was put on probation for failing to file a particular document, and has plans to take the exam this coming august on ethics and professional responsibility. He also was placed on probation for failing to file a papers on a case que he was working on and lost the file con todo el proof que he had on this case. Pesse hejola. In other news, el vato morgan chuy Gonzales patio, was arrested on suspicion of DUI when el constable noticed que several hoses of a gas station pump sticking out of his car’s fuel door. el constable stopped him when he noticed him driving through the hood in reverse. Once he was stopped he was asked what was going on, he told el constable que the gears wouldn’t work in his old 1978 chevy. And he was going to buy some gas. And finally for some unknown reason lots of barrio members have been driving naked. La commadre maria Hernandez y su toddler were arrested for driving nude. Y just yesterday says el constable cadena, tells us que frank perez smashed into several parked cars while driving naked, and finally el primo y la prima colonga were arrested for driving around naked. Both are 72 years of age. Why this new trend, the constable is not real sure about this. But its getting to be a serious issue here in the hood. We just can have all this old folks driving around naked, or can we. Well raza there you have it for todays headline barrio news. I am johnnie el quemon from Monterey mexico, have a great tejano day.

WATTA YALL EXTREME RIGHT WINGERS SKEERED OF

2006-05-25T23:20:00.000-07:00

WATTA YALL EXTREME RIGHT WINGERS SKEERED OF
Posted on May 26, 2006 at 01:53:41 AM by Jaime Kenedeno

WATTA YALL SKEERED OF ERIC.....
5/26/2006 12:16 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"We The People"?

or

"Moctemoc's Door"?

WELCOME!

"Engaging the average citizen in the formulation of Public Policy" is our mission @ Team Kenedeno.

"The Net is a powerful force for change -- and a dynamic tool for citizen education and action. Read the latest research on citizen participation online, the stories and experiences of coalitions, corporate clients, and others working in the cyber trenches, and discover the potential to become an active participant in online democracy."

Cant yall guys feel that rumble?

The City Council and Loyd Neal are fixin to take a tumble.

Is it true the company that hires city employees is insured by LLoyd?

Not of London either!

Remember Eric, my goal is to engage the average citizen in the formulation of public policy.

Are you against informing the Public in a balanced manner?

WATT Rule did I violate so as to be censored?

If you are against Freedom of Speech then erase ME.

We will take everything we brought to the morning and evening ratings.

Except Tuesday with "El Defenzor Live".

"We Know We're From Here"

Brother Leo

Monks? double-check your results with another legal research resource

Of course the most fundamental element of a fair process is the right to counsel. Because without a lawyer, a person untrained in the law has no idea

South Texas Judicial Watch Dog Authority: Dear Officers of the Court, submitted for further investigation

Nueces De La Parra: Nobody kicked Joe Elizondo off of the CCREDC Board. He was inebriated and "with" females not his wife. Ask Denise about the "Bache

Roderick, Peter, O'Connor, CIA & JFK

DECLASSIFIED

Blakey's "Linchpin": Dr. Guinn, Neutron Activation Analysis, & the Single-Bullet Theory - Part 1

Blakey's "Linchpin": Dr. Guinn, Neutron Activation Analysis, & the Single-Bullet Theory - Part 2

A CRITIQUE OF DR. RAHN'S DEFENSE (?) of DR. GUINN'S FINDINGS - Part 1

A CRITIQUE OF DR. RAHN'S DEFENSE (?) of DR. GUINN'S FINDINGS - Part 2

JOHN F. KENNEDY'S FATAL WOUNDS: THE WITNESSES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS FROM 1963 TO THE PRESENT

CIA Files and the Pre-Assassination Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald

The Three Oswald Deceptions: The Operation. The Cover-Up, and the Conspiracy

INCA Dinka Do

Bringing it All Together: The New Releases And How They Help Us Converge On The Heart Of The Case

In The Files

Two Big Lies: Files are Open, Case is Closed

No Smoking Gun, But Something Smells

The House Select Commitee on Assassinations and the Autopsy Photographic Evidence

Oswald and the CIA

JFK & the Cuban Connection

Blows Against the Empire: A Breach in the Wall of Government Secrecy - The Review Series, Part 1

Pieces of the Jigsaw - The Review Series, Part 2

The Plot Thickens: Lee Harvey Oswald in a Covert World - The Review Series, Part 3

Sunshine in Dark Corners: Covert Intelligence Operatives and Lee Oswald - The Review Series, Part 4

The Early Investigations: Before and After the Assassination - The Review Series, Part 5

History Repeats Itself: The House Select Committee on Assassinations - The Review Series, Part 6

A Celebration of Freedom: Latest Research and Secrets from the Files - The Review Series, Part 7

No written report exists that indicates that DHS has Jurisdiction in this case.........or is fleeing into Mexico~it ?

"But I've seen priests put on cologne, dress up and go on dates with guys."

"But I've seen priests put on cologne, dress up and go on dates with guys."

where your voters are illiterate or they cannot speak, read, and write the English or Spanish languages you have to haul them like cattle to the polls

Al Gonzalez Community and Education Center.: There's no need to tell Al Gonzalez about divine intervention

watt texas politicos are finally getting pist?

Nueces De La Parra: WATT a CROCK of CCCT / 6 News Media Propaganda

Armstrong Ranch: A 20-gauge shotgun worth $2,073 that Katharine Armstrong and 10 other friends gave to Karl Rove

meru another lady/movida "over reached"

barrio report

WATTA YALL EXTREME RIGHT WINGERS SKEERED OF