Conversation 691-007

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

President, how are you?

Fine, how are you?

Good to see you.

That's the way it is, Pat.

Gosh, you've got it all over the town.

We've only got three copies, Frank, found.

One for you and one for us.

Yeah, it's got a little marijuana in it.

But that's just for color.

Where are you over there?

You know, I'd say it's really interesting.

Well, the main thing is that you guys are out here moving.

All right.

Let me say, I think it is something that all I am concerned with the other folks are missing.

I think we will run it.

You got me into something that I did nothing about except from a peripheral standpoint.

I didn't try at all.

The reason I have it is that every time they ask me, they say, Governor, have you tried the marijuana?

I say, well, there's two schools of thought on our commission.

There's the school that says you can't be objective about anything unless you try it.

There's the other school that says you can't be objective if you have, because then you become prejudiced.

But, in a nutshell, what I want to say very clearly is that we've got a fine commission here dedicated to the involvement that he got.

He was very unanimous in our report.

There were two footnotes.

One was made by Hughes and Javits.

on the one side, and the other one by Carter Rodgers and Ware on the other, with reference to one of our recommendations of the facing thrust, is... That's right.

We are analysts and scientists.

We do not believe that marijuana should be legalized.

Analysts are saying that there ought to be a discouragement policy on the use of the substance.

We feel that the possession of that substance

has shown no utility in the discouragement policy and in fact has created so many problems, the least of which has been the cynicism and distrust in the young that we should have a new policy with reference to this particular drug.

It has nothing to do with heroin, cocaine, the amphetamines, the barbiturates.

hallucinogenic with all of those solvents they're in a different category we're talking about this we're trying to deflate it as a as a symbol deflated as a as an issue and if we have done it but our new policy is that it should be all right what we like here is that

the discouragement, the education of the user should, the responsibility for that should fall on the shoulders of the family, the home, the church, the medical profession.

And then relieve the law enforcement officials of that particular task and let them put all of their energies into getting the pusher, the trafficker, the supplier, the person who prays in the frailties of other people.

Now, this is a feeling that I can just hear in my mind.

Why is this spreading?

I don't know.

As far as we're going to have a news conference tomorrow, and subject to your approval, what I can only say is that I present the report to you and that you

Thank you.

Well, did not express them.

Right.

We didn't go into the specifics.

Right.

I want to study this a lot.

Other reports that I have received, I'm happy to try to do that.

Having made this view, I'm very impressed.

What do you think, John, is that sound like?

Good way to end this, sir.

Where would you have your comments, sir?

I'd like to have them all in the rooms up there and all the rooms in there.

I'd like to have Dr. Jackson on here for a very short period of time.

He's a part of it all.

Jackie, we'll look through it, yes, sir.

That's fine.

The point is, you had individuals on this commission who were the originals of the law.

And they, as you know, were the ones that were considered the old, the moss-backed conservatives.

And all we were going to do was just go through the motions.

These are the thoughtful men, the hard work seekers, the dean of Southern Methodist Law School, Charlie Allen, John Howell, the president of Rockford College, you know, individuals who worked very hard.

They all contributed substantially to the report.

This was not a report that was just put together by the staff and handed to the commissioners.

Maybe you wouldn't say, well, that's not right.

They all contributed substantially to the report.

The congressional members didn't participate as much until the very end, until the very end.

And that was the complete fact that they voted.

We would have had legalization if we hadn't really, you know, they wanted to have the alcohol model, which is wrong.

We were against legalization because we legalized that.

In the first place, the return to an audience about the far-flash protests.

I would say that the return to the audience, you know how Ray is an old politician, he was a very lawless man.

no matter how precisely you state it and how your report reads, that they will try to oversimplify it and say, make it recommend legalization or it does not recommend it.

And I think if you, I think it's important that you say let us understand what this report does do and what this does not do.

We do not believe marijuana should be legalized.

I think you should say that.

I've already said it.

And then you go on to say, however we believe it in terms of penalties, that there should be some, in order to get at the problem, there should be...

This is not the other thing.

I don't know how to come out still.

They may still say, you know, well, the commission recommends the legalization of possession of marijuana.

That's what people say.

How do you perceive it, Bill?

They might come out anyway by saying the decriminalization of possession is in fact legalization.

But this is not true.

We're not tracking it.

It's selling.

We, what we're intending to do is to cut off the supply, this is one of the things, cut off the supply.

But we don't want to criminalize or stigmatize our kids.

We teach our kids to be individualistic.

Why should we criminalize them for doing something at this level in our criminal justice system?

We don't do it at that level with other aspects of criminal justice.

This is what we're trying to say.

And I think by telling the truth, which is the first process we're going to be making strides in our situation, we're trying to be persuasive rather than punitive.

And this is in line with what you said about penalties.

And as I started to say, we're dividing our recommendations as far as the

discouraging policy abuse in two-fold.

Doing what they do in Spain and in Greece, where the family ties and church ties are strong, they don't have the same drug problem we have.

But in those countries that just rely on the law, like India, which is dangerous.

Or go down to Morocco, where there's a law against hashish.

I don't have this on time.

You go down on the street, you can find it.

It comes from kids peddling it.

So what we're doing here, maybe we're too naive about it, and maybe we're not going to be able to get across to the press what we're trying to do.

But for the first time today that I ever received this, I got it in a receptive book.

I was talking with a guy last week and I didn't do a very good job of explaining the position because it's very hard to talk in terms of non-legalization and decriminalization.

But by using the example, you know, during the Prohibition,

What we're doing is saying, let's try the partial prohibition approach that we did in the United States in prohibition.

You know, it wasn't illegal to possess liquor or to drink it in the United States during prohibition.

Under the federal law, or in any of the states except five, did you know that?

I didn't know I got on that case.

And yet, you see, it was legalized.

But you could not be arrested in the privacy of your own home.

Not at all, except in five cities.

And you say, well, that didn't work.

Well, of course it didn't work, because there wasn't a policy of discouragement, you know.

And you were talking about a substance that had already had the sanction or approval of the society for years.

And we don't think that we ought to give the sanction or approval of society to marijuana.

But on the other hand, we don't want a kid to be put into the criminal law merely because he is curious enough to try to exercise his own will.

individuality.

Now that is an oversimplified statement as to what we're attempting to do in this report, but when we think that we have as diverse a people as Javits and Mitch Ware and Howard and John Cooney in to get a unanimous report, you know we had to work pretty hard on that.

I mean, we had to at least try to bring it together, reconcile a lot of things.

Now, the thing that I would hope that we could continue to say is that we want to look at it and just don't...

We have agreed on opposing the legalization of the criminalization report.

And also, a statute calls for review of the recommendations of that which have both the Congress and the executive branch which will be done.

And I think in terms of specifics on decriminalization, there is

For instance, that's something that does require a lot of study.

Now all the findings are backed up by scientific studies, they're backed up by the department of HEW, they're backed up by the ADA, the American Bar Association, which is a wonderful organization, as you know.

The American Medical Association.

The committees on the ADA and ANA are both on a four-part issue, of course, with our recommendation, so that we don't have any weird people that are against us or those who say, on the one hand, that marijuana is a harmless drug and that we can't really live with it.

Well, then it's not.

It's a harmful drug.

And we say that.

It has potential for harm.

We say that in our report.

We're just trying to put the emphasis, not on criminalizing the user, but on getting the traffic, getting the supplier, getting the push.

And deflating the issue, de-emphasizing the whole problem of the issue, which is emotional.

It's more than just a psychological substance.

It's a complete...

So I wonder if you argue from this to the same, would you argue the same way for heroin?

No.

Why not?

Well, because heroin has an entirely different psychological effect on people.

It has an entirely different sociological effect.

It's physically addictive.

Marijuana is not.

It definitely causes harm to people.

Yes.

Marijuana has not had that same effect.

See, the problem is that in 1937, the statute was passed, which was based on a false assumption.

They used to say you just want to cut the marijuana, you die, or you want to kill somebody.

Yeah, I can show you articles like this.

And as a result, a whole...

A whole group of this grew up on it.

And what we're trying to do is get that out of the way to kids.

And I had no excuse for a lot of the things.

You know, Gary Rubin doesn't want this.

He wants the law to stay the way it is.

And then he goes out and says, you smoke your cigarette, now you're an enemy of society.

They used to say that marijuana caused crime.

Well, there's no science to begin with.

It's a hypothesis that it leads to crime.

It's just been pretty well discarded.

It's the only way you can talk to any science on drugs.

But the interesting hypothesis is that once a person smokes marijuana, which is against the law, then he has dropped his psychological barriers to drug crime.

So then it's easier for him to do other things.

And that's where the danger is.

This is from another .

Well, in any event, we have a thoughtful report.

I'm sure you can find all kinds of holes in it.

I'm sure that there are inconsistencies.

But you have a dedicated commission who are wholeheartedly behind you on this, with maybe the possible exception of a couple of the politicos who wouldn't be behind you on anything.

Well,

You can tell us, John, how this is being tried by Ray, because he doesn't want to, he doesn't want to, he doesn't, I guess, he's got two, well, I want you to get into a position, you know, where the people misinterpret the commissions.

You know, I mean, if they say this is a permissive report, then all hell will break loose.

I'm sure I'm going to get that question tomorrow, because they're going to say, well, I'm going to say we are absolutely not being permissive, or are we being, what's the other word for it?

Repressive, right?

Repressive.

We're being neither.

What we're doing is counting the troops.

And I think, I don't know.

What's it going to say?

It's going to say there's an election.

It's not a lot.

I don't know what to say.

What we're saying is we are putting that behavior known as crimes of impersonal possession in one's own home, not in public.

If it's in public, it's a criminal act.

And we're holding a person responsible

for his acts, if he's under the influence of marijuana.

Unlike alcohol, you know, alcohol is a defense.

When I was a prosecutor, I was always coming up against individuals saying, oh, you know, I was under the influence.

And the courts have said repeatedly that being under the influence of alcohol may not be a negative defense.

an excuse to get out of the crime, but it can be used for mitigating certain offenses.

And we say in here very certainly.

It certainly can have a great deal of effect on intent, I'm sure.

That's a good point.

But we're saying alcohol is almost the...

But we're saying he is finished in that respect.

What we're saying in here is that if a person takes marijuana, that he then completely cuts off his right to use, being under the influence of the defense anyhow.

It's an interesting hypothesis, isn't it?

It's an interesting thought.

I'm just thinking, you know.

We've got a lot of thinking about it.

I can see that.

We've gone into it very deeply.

I know.

It's a terrible, terrible, difficult problem, you know.

But we are going to be honored to be involved in it.

The nation knows very well about it.

And there's one other thing that I think is very important.

When we're talking about legalization, we say we don't want to institutionalize it.

That is a fact.

I think there's some evidence that marijuana is not a big thing, and was even a year ago.

Really?

I have a kid.

Well, most of the young people that we've talked to said they tried it.

And I said, why don't you use it again?

Why?

I don't like it.

We have a great many, and because it has been given this, it doesn't give them enough liquid.

If you take half, it's five, six, eight times as powerful as an ordinary cigarette.

But in India and Malaysia, they use it all the time.

They boil it and put it in cakes and cookies and candy, and they just give it a little mild acceleration.

Do they ask them?

Oh, sure.

They ask them if they use any marrow.

Oh, no.

We never do that.

We put in a little of this seasoning every now and then.

And it gets them a little better, too.

You're going to be emphasized at the press conference tomorrow, however, your opposition to legalization at the beginning of it.

I'm going to make this very clear.

I'll make it very clear what the purpose of our, or what the plan is.

Well, then they'll come right to the point.

They'll say, well, now, we're going to hear the signal.

I submitted it, and he said he's taken the report under consideration.

But the President's position on this plan, you know, is...

flat-out legalization of marijuana.

As far as this particular thing, if you recommend it, the president is not going to endorse the provision.

I'm not going to say that he has, sir.

I just need him to endorse or reject it if he's going to study it.

Excuse me, 6.2.

But I've submitted it very quickly.

Thank you.

Well, in fact, what I'd like to say is really good, because I'm not going into it in great depth.

We've got to go too far in that direction.

I'll say that.

My mind might come out of your thing, President, considering legalization of marijuana.

That's why I want to say that we didn't go into the substance of the report at all.

I think that's the matter.

I think you'd better stay away from that, because if you do, I don't know.

It'll lead to me to be the question.

I will, of course, come in the whole thing.

But I think that you can say, well, the President's position has been that he opposes the legalization of marijuana.

And as far as the other parts of the report we didn't submit, he didn't comment on that.

He had no comment on those.

And we didn't discuss those.

We just submitted the report.

And that's what I'll do.

Fair enough.

That way you'll avoid getting, you know, there's another thing too.

You'll find all the candidates in Russia and in San Francisco

I mean, we've got a lot of good Samaritans.

Several people have them now.

So, McGovern was support.

McGovern was McGovern's shithead the other day.

Yeah.

Must be.

Well, hell, they all are.

That's all I saw with the CDC on prison.

Now, on the other side of the question, you know, Hubert could do this and get away with a piece of stable.

That's all Hubert can do.

But that sort of a guy, on every issue, he gets one position one day and another one the next day.

And, you know, satisfies both sides of the question.

Really.

You know, that four-month, you must be having a hell of a time when it gets Hubert, because Muskie tries to be kind of honorable.

straight arrow and all that sort of thing and hubert doesn't give a damn you know he just flatly comes out he says no i've said this or that he says both sides are boxing him on both sides of segregation like you know depend on where the hell he is what's your credit for the old folks against the old folks

Well, it was certainly, certainly, you couldn't find anybody in this job right a month ago that didn't think Muskie was a total shooter.

Except possibly me.

And the reason I said, but I'm not sure, is I said, he probably is.

I said, but you're never going to be sure because nobody ever, until he's done it, ever knows how tough the presidential race is.

And a man is not tested until he's done that one.

I mean, you come under that, you come under senators, you come under anything else, and they're all tough.

So when they start, it's poor George Romney about that.

Well, I mean, they cut his guts out.

He's a good man.

But, you know, this National Press Corps is rough.

Now, Muskie ran into that.

He's had problems.

Maybe he'll recover from it.

I don't know.

Huber, I don't know.

Gilbert seems to have a press corps with him somewhere.

Gilbert?

Well, he's a delight to follow, you know.

He just laughs.

He's got guys around, talks around all the subjects.

The other Nazi, the other one, of course, is Bill Sessions.

For example, John Collins, you know.

Joe, I concur.

I mean, this has been, if you want, my first time, and I've said all along, and I felt that the Democrats were going to get into such a hassle that they'll go to Teddy and Scott and the people will come and pick it up and sell it.

Why back to my arm?

I think that that's a very big reason.

I'm not quitting for that time, but we forgot.

All you have to do is to get that television...

sequence in terms of forming mary joe and others talk about him maybe she told me film

Hanrahan, who's running against the David Mission.

Who knows Hanrahan?

Well, he's a DA out there, running against the David Mission.

They kicked him out of the election.

For real?

The election.

The election for what?

The DA.

The state's attorney.

Right.

I should know all the key jobs.

But why is David trying to purge him?

Well, because he was involved in that Black Panther deal, and they were against the Black Panthers.

Against the Black Panthers?

Yeah, against the Black Panthers.

But he got indicted.

And it's for violation of civil rights.

And so the machines tell you there's a lot going on.

Well, I see.

Yeah.

Great.

It's a prosecutor.

Yeah.

Prosecuting area.

Well, Anderson went around this morning before the polls opened, and he went into a precinct and a rundown.

And he went into this precinct five minutes of eight before it opened, and there were already 105 names on the register attending closing.

Just like that.

But you see, there are, what, 8,000?

Oh, God.

Isn't that amazing?

No, Hannah was Daly's man.

Now, Hannah gave up the federal prosecutor and the state prosecutor and the Daly machine.

And then they had this Black Panther case, and when they investigated them, they...

The state put in a special investigating group.

They came up with the fact that Hanrahan had lied and covered up evidence with reference to bullets.

And so he was indicted.

He's never been convicted of that.

He hasn't come on trial.

He's never.

And then David Dunn.

But instead of taking the dumping, he's running against the dangerous part.

Well, he has got a chance, I think.

Yeah, for Christ's sake.

I guess McCarthy...

He doesn't have 75 or 80.

There ain't no way.

You know what I mean?

McCartney's nothing.

Illinois has the biggest police ship.

Yeah, it could be helpful.

They're getting...

I've eaten so much sausage in the last five days.

And the other rally today, the way it is.

Now, this is probably the state he's going to be in.

Then he goes from Montgomery to the development side.

It's still one of the three, of course.

It's Humphrey, Muskie, or Teddy.

Right.

And Muskie's, Muskie's hope is to win, is to have a press say that he did very well in Illinois.

And then, his big test is Wisconsin.

If, but he's got to take Wisconsin in mind.

If he were to be sent to Wisconsin,

But Wisconsin's got a hell of a bullish migration, don't you see?

He's been a shoo-in there, don't you think?

That's true, absolutely.

Some of those Wisconsin Poles don't look at all good, Mark.

The ones I saw earlier reported he was leaking.

They were too long and they changed.

They changed considerably.

They have changed.

I know that one very well.

Well, even the healers, you know, they have all the campaigns, they're bouncing around telling things about the guy.

And, you know, many of us, many of us who try to say one thing, one place, one thing, and the press kill us for not doing it.

They sort of laugh about it.

Huh?

If he's big enough trouble, Milton Schaap will come running out of the east.

Hey, I just want you to know that Milton Schaap, of course, he's looking for a man to come after Muskie.

Oh, he's running for vice president now.

Oh, isn't that good?

Muskie's got a deadlock.

It'll go to him.

Well, he came after Muskie.

He's got all the country people.

You know, country people are pretty strong in this way.

Are they?

So later, yeah, he had a law.

Or is it a law?

They may.

No.

I don't think so.

Oh, he won't come.

He's still buying.

Oh, he won't come.

They're hungry.

Not until the very last minute.

It'll be very quick.

Go ahead.

Go ahead about Melvin.

Well, you know, he was a repulsive bastard.

What a magnificent understanding.

You know, but I met him once, and he was, I mean, I know a lot of them.

And they're very decent people.

Any guy that runs a movie comes together and has to be quite a follow-up.

But now,

the name shaver is uh what is he doing now is he up is he still leading the grounds for muskie oh yeah sure i mean the headline yesterday was that shaft accused of uh

coercion to get help from Husky and Humphrey people, you know, that would be surprising.

When is Pennsylvania going to crack April 25th?

That's a long, that's after Wisconsin.

Yes.

That's immediately because of

although you see they run in there they run in their own

in the hinterland, that some of them can run, pledge to a candidate, or un-pledge.

They are actually elected.

Except for the ten, as far as Republicans are concerned, we don't have as many dollars as the Democrats.

Put up your fire.

There's so many that you don't have that we have.

All right, yes.

There's an actual paperweight bag.

The paper's too heavy.

Throw away the paper without the paper.

That's right.

All right.

I appreciate your work on this.

Good.

I'll report that to the commission.

Tell them we appreciate their work.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Okay.

Bye-bye.

Thanks, sir.

Thank you very much.

Yes, sir.

We need your help.

All right.

Well, here's where we're asking for something fairly extraordinary.

This ITT document is in the possession of the Bureau.

We want the Bureau to prevent ITT's expert to examine the document while it is in the Bureau's possession.

The Bureau, of course, is always very jealous.

And so rather than to get you a match in the details,

If you could call Hoover and simply say, he will be getting a call from me, and that you would personally appreciate his cooperation in the request which will be made.

you don't even have to use the words idt oh i won't uh but that's where they don't get out though well uh the i called yes it will get out that you called but it will not get out what was said under any circumstances because you won't refer to anything except the fact that he's going to be getting a call from me

Now, I may call him or I may go see him, which might be a better way to do it.

And what I'll ask him to do is simply permit this guy to examine the document while it is in the custody of the Bureau and to subject it to non-damaging tests under the observation of the Bureau.

So they'd already done that.

They have, but they have to do some more.

And they did it before, while it was not in the possession of the Bureau.

It was in the possession of Pat Gray.

So this is an extraordinary thing for the Bureau to have to do.

And we'll take our request.

Now, if I call Hoover, he might acquiesce.

But he might turn me down.

Then we'd be in the position of, well, because then he'd have that thing.

I'm just trying to think of something.

Now, what we might do, you might write him a note, which I could take over, show him, and take back.

Yeah, I'll just say I didn't want to let you go to this, but I, for reasons that you will well understand, I want to take it back on you.

Do you agree?

I think this is in your attention.

Yeah, I understand.

This is in his interest, because it will be in the direction of getting Anderson.

Okay.

I appreciate your cooperation.

You must remember me.

Great.

Perfect.

I'm sorry, this is an emergency.

Right.

Do you have to rush?

No.

Yes, she's a writer.

Oh, yeah.

I've heard her for years.

We've cut down on the outboard plane.

How people say about them is, on the old days, I was going to heaven.

I agree with that, but sometimes it's not.

It's still there.

It's a soul.

It's faith.

It's time.

Why do we have people the second and third and fourth times?

Would you tell me why?

Sir, I can't.

Yes, let's do this.

This is a total mystery to me.

Total mystery to me.

uh...

One of the critical points of the Inferno Defense of the Coliseum is that it is very low-ranging, and you can use troops in order to make it acceptable.

The substance of the rationale of the nation is tremendous, and terrible for many rights.

One of the high-profession men in the church is the Dalai Lama, who caused the freedom of the court to end.

against us in World War I. I was the, the left-legged was Churchill.

So you want to say it was he fighting against us and the Allies won.

Something that reminded me of that, that's great.

You know what Aaron said out here this morning, he skirted near that and I forgot how he put it, but it brought to mind the fact they were on the wrong side.

I don't remember where they were.

Yeah.

What are your feelings about this report?

It's a lousy report.

Can we give it a chance?

No, sir.

There is no place to be able to sell a whole life to Lee Carter.

Well, I don't understand what went on in that commission, because this guy fresh from Rockland.

He's out.

He's out of the Rockland Reserve.

Sure.

Sure he is.

But what do you think about legalizing the use?

and possession marijuana that's a crazy rule and what they've done is they've come halfway it's it's it's this it's it's like there would be no law against consuming liquor at home but there'd be a law against selling now how the hell can you make that work he's not in any illusions and bud and i made it very clear to him before he came in here

so that he's not under no misapprehension.

Well, and everything we've said out around, we all get asked about this all the time.

And we always say there's a lot of daylight between us and that commission.

Suppose we, uh, if I do get into the press in Jersey, I'm asked about what would you say?

Say, well, I've got the report.

I've begun to read it, and I can see already that I'm going to have serious problems with it.

I have serious reservations about some of the recommendations, in particular the reservation about legalizing it.

They don't expect to agree with it.

I'm not so sure about that.

Somebody was telling me

I really don't think it's quite like that anymore.

Three years ago, Bob's younger boy, he says, well, I know three years ago it was much more of a problem in our kids' school.

But I don't know what it is, but I guess perhaps it's a hopeless reactionary.

I don't think so.

But I can't understand the question of morality.

Here's the question, God damn it, what will work?

I am sure, as I sit here, if you make it acceptable and fashionable to use the God damn things, it will increase the use, of course.

And I don't think you're upset with most people.

You know, I spoke up at that Harvard Club in New York, Henry Steele, and there were older people and younger people, but all Harvards, and all in elections.

And I got a question from a long-haired kid about legalization of marijuana, and I said, the president's against it.

I said, why is he against it?

There's two kinds of people in this country.

There's the people in the drug scene and there's the people out of the drug scene.

And there's any little bit about it.

You're either in it or you're out of it.

And the people that are in it have all kinds of problems.

And we think it's better they don't have those problems.

So it's better if everybody stays out of the drug scene.

So we don't have any place to draw the line except right there.

So they say, what about us?

Well, and then I got a big hooray from, I would say, far away, the majority of the press.

You get that question, and I'm in great shape on that, of course.

Because I say, I agree completely with you.

And that stops them then.

but all right well i think it has to be a matter of personal conviction with me i think that the same rule out of plain alcohol for a lot of the same reasons you know but but it doesn't so so rather than rather than compound the wrong

I am convinced that their evidence is not right.

Well, any time you give up your senses.

Isn't that what this is all about?

As a matter of fact, I'll close.

Sure.

Why, sure.

It can't be this way.

Why isn't it?

I didn't, of course, but I don't have a body.

But I think it wasn't evil.

But why isn't anything important that you don't drink?

Why, of course.

I don't drink tonight.

You've got to ask yourself, why?

You know, just nothing.

But I'll be God's man if I'll take a drink.

I don't, I never, I don't drink in China.

Why?

Nothing.

That's it.

They blast around.

Yeah.

Why?

And I know all kinds of happy people who don't drink at all.

I know all kinds of unhappy people who do.

That's correct.

So I can't equate it to happiness.

No.

And so it's just our few arguments that I've seen.

But it's...

There's something else you said, too.

Drinking?

No.

And it is a progressive thing.

That's the point.

Stores, stores, stores.

Well, I just don't see any place to draw the line.

Jaffee doesn't either.

Herb doesn't either.

Well, what?

I can't hear your sort of supportive issues.

No, I don't think so.

I don't think so.

But tell me.

I've not talked to Jaffee.

No, he's not brought to the line.

No, but this is not a problem.

Apparently, in a meeting yesterday, I had to leave, but I understand that you got into this ADA business, and that Jack expressed some views about the Edward Pedler-Banner Williams study, about terrible maintenance.

Got it.

I'm totally convinced.

Well, I talked to Ed Light about that this morning, and he's got Jack back in shape on that.

I think it was all right.

Well, I just don't see any way for you to come partway down this road with them and remain anywhere near faithful to what you've been standing for right along.

And there's certainly nothing in the report that I know of that I haven't read in detail.

But I don't know that they have come up with any new evidence.

They have rearranged the old evidence, if that's what you might say.

And he asked for new evidence, scientific or some other kind of evidence.

I don't think you're in a position to move.

You have to... What if you think it's another way?

You're going to ask to take off if you're not holding?

No, no problem.

No problem.

What if you think of Humphrey's switch or his death?

Why did he switch?

Well, of course, he was cute about it.

He said he switched because he read your sections.

and said that your television press had been very misleading.

That's right.

It's much more literal than the press.

And he's catching hell from the press on the scene.

Is he?

Oh, yeah.

The writing press is just really cutting him off.

But again, what did you say?

Good old Hubert.

Monday, Wednesday, Friday, he's got one view.

Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, he gets something out.

He's on both sides of the war.

He's on both sides of crime.

He's on both sides of civil rights now.

He's on both sides of welfare now.

He was, you know, in all his commercials in Florida.

He said, Hubert Humphrey stands for driving the welfare cheater out of the welfare system.

Yeah, hard one.

I told you about his kosher, his kosher plant for elderly Jews down there in Miami Beach.

What do you think of, what do you think of page or what?

On the blessing?

Ridiculous.

I doubt that he ever saw it, but I think the staff cranked that up probably.

I suppose that's a legitimate criticism, you know, I didn't intend it that way, and we certainly didn't either in the state or the rest.

Otherwise, why the hell do we have equal educational opportunity and, you know, and all that sort of thing.

That's not my concern.

I always mention blacks and so forth.

But Teddy's, and I suppose the Libs can only go after saying, we take a position on this which shows no

or interest in the blacks?

Well, you know, the answer to that is I don't think it's ideal.

Well, I think one answer is this.

I don't know which drives blacks and whites apart more.

There is more exacerbated issues than us.

Well, you've got a better answer than that.

And that is that this particular statement has to be read along with the last statement that you made two years ago.

It doesn't supersede it.

It complements it.

And there's plenty of language in there.

And then there's a heck of a lot of action showing compassion for the blacks in the last two years.

Well, I mean, you've got actual action.

You know, minority business and all kinds of things.

Well, sure, you have something about the little kids and their isolation and so on.

This is just rhetoric in there, it all has to be rhetoric.

What they want, I think, what the percussionists want, we're supposed to be aggressive and have a utility about everything at the time.

They want to talk about compensatory.

Whatever it's worth, or whatever it's worth.

Did you notice in New York, if there was, among those government lawyers and analysts, if there was 100% of violence, they sure as hell showed up.

There's no crystallization of opposites.

Have you seen the wire we got from Jim Cheek, the president of Howard University?

I've sent it down to him.

He says, I totally, heartily endorse your stand on busing.

You have taken precisely the correct position.

Well, he believes it.

To what extent do we have a problem?

I'd say, on a scale of 100, we have about a 20 problem.

I don't think it'll happen.

I just don't see any sign of it.

They want to argue the merits.

They want to argue constitutionality, and they want to argue modifications and all that stuff.

I think the point that you make is very, very strong there.

Since when, since when does the Constitution, does it become constitutional for the Congress to deal with the remedies, particularly from the right?

That's the point.

I'll say the right, no.

It's a right.

It's a remedy.

Yes, sir.

That's exactly right.

If we say that busing for the purpose of desegregation is a right, using that remedy is a right, then they've rewritten the Constitution.

They've rewritten the Constitution.

The Constitution says, well, that desegregation is a right.

It also says that Congress may prescribe

remedies, in effect, may legislate judicial remedies.

And so I think it's very clear.

But our administration blacks, I'll continue to keep my finger on the pulse, but I think we've got a sort of a position-saving response.

And you've got Dennis, of course.

Oh, yes.

Dennis Morgan and...

Some of the closet, I guess it is, are headed out to do editorial boards and television.

You know, as a group, as a team.

Right.

Are they going south?

Yep.

Going primarily down into the deep border states in the south and over into Texas.

I think that's where we have the main problem.

That's where we're having the principal difficulty with people who should be supporting us.

Really?

I don't see any sign of it yet.

Now, the legislation... We're getting, we're getting

No, we got the predictable reception up here.

We got some surprising opposition in the South, because we thought we'd sweep that.

And we're getting good support from places like Denver and Indianapolis, places of that kind.

Very strong affirmative support.

No.

Today is, what, Tuesday?

Thursday will be the final meeting to develop the list.

And you're going to get Michigan in?

Yep.

I talked to Clint Eastside.

I had lunch with him today.

We'll get Nashville.

We'll get Michigan.

And so he's playing ball, and they're going to get Texas Houston in.

Now, that I don't know.

I didn't ask him.

I'm going to go over this with Morgan tomorrow and go through it.

But Klein is very much a board and is a ball player on that.

Now, just as soon as they get that done and Morgan gets a Justice Department position, then he's taken off.

So he'll be gone essentially all next week on that.

The legislative sponsor, the congressional boys, have done a good job, and both pieces of legislation are being offered with good sponsorships.

The conference committee still thinks they can get the moratorium under that conference.

Is it the Congress that just about had to pass the moratorium?

Yeah.

Because that's going to be the wash out of this thing.

I stopped squealing about it.

It's unbelievable what the hell we said at first.

First, they would be, remember I asked you, does this help any of this out?

And you said, yes, they got some cases.

It's a moratorium.

Well, it does.

Second, the general legislation would allow reopening cases.

That's it.

Third, it's been solved before because we said it.

This doesn't work with supporting legislation.

Yep, yep.

The Constitutional Amendment gives them no help whatever at this time.

Well, you've got some cheap shots from guys like Strom Thurmond, who just wanted a chance to say to the folks at home that they wanted all their buses thrown out right this very month, you know.

And then the Constitutional Amendment would do it, which they don't bother to handle at all.

Do all that they can't get.

The Constitutional Amendment can't pass.

That's it.

They want the issue.

Well, it keeps it alive.

Sir?

As between us and any Democrat at the time, don't worry.

We'll be on the right side.

Yeah, you'll have this felony that you won't be voting.

No way.

Hey, sorry.

On this issue.

You're right you are.

You know, on this thing with Hoover, it would be hard for him to do this.

He just got to say it.

This is a long shot.

Well, I've got a little foundation with him.

I talked to him on the phone the other day about Anderson, and he gave us a little help on Anderson's past.

But the reason that this is terribly important, and it should never be repeated to anybody, is that Pat Gray turned this document over to ITT the other night without Eastland knowing it.

They flew it to New York and had some tests run on it and flew it back.

We want to cover that by doing it under the auspices of the Bureau with a Bureau man present now so that if ITT is asked, did you have access to this document, they can truthfully say, yes, we did, and refer to the latter episode and not have to refer to the former episode.

It would be very, very embarrassing all the way around because this damn document was floating around up there in New York and no government people anywhere near it.

And it was just a bad call.

So, I think it's great, basically.

It was just a bad judgment call.

He should have sent some kind of an agent or a U.S. attorney or somebody would have.

I think we can cover it this way.

And we've got a fair chance of turning up enough evidence for I.T.T.

to go out and claim that it's a more mysterious item.

Well, they don't say it's not.

They say it was typed at a certain period of time.

which doesn't authenticate it necessarily.

We're going to just recreate smoke here in any case, where nobody's going to be able to conclusively prove what the hell this document is.

They run out and they're going to grill and eat a beer for a total of three days, three hours a day next week.

No hearings before that.

to get the goddamn thing out of the press room.

Right.

And they'll hit Dede Beard in Denver three days.

Then when they come back, Eastland proposes to chop it off.

Is he ready to chop it off?

Yeah.

Well, if we're honest, can you do that and not call all the other witnesses?

Well, we don't have no agreement to call all them witnesses.

And he thinks this thing has run on long enough that it's time to have a vote.

Mike Mansfield feels it's time to have a vote.

I don't know.

Probably the negative stuff that's beginning to come forward.

Yeah.

Could be a liability for him if it's a forged document and so on and so forth.

I think we can raise enough questions at least to neutralize some of this.

Vice President got off some great cracks about that live magazine.

Oh, God.

I thought they were super rich, some of our people.

He does better than I don't read fiction in the morning.

That's a damn cool question.

Isn't that great?

Yeah, it really is.

Good stuff.

Oh, they had him on all the networks.

And of course the papers, but of course they had him.

That may have been better than a speech.

Yep.

What did he do?

Caught him at the airport.

He got off about four one-liners.

Bing, bang, bing, bang.

Yeah.

And then the next sequence was client deans.

Yeah.

And he gave the reasoned argument.

Yeah.

And said the Justice Department's proud of the conduct of that case and so on and so forth.

But the vice president hit the tone of it.

Really what?

Yeah.

Is that some magazine that ran Clifford Irving and they ought to follow a look over the edge or something?

Yeah.

Well, they're in their death throes, I would guess.

You know, somebody said something at the staff meeting this morning that gave me pause.

We've been out helping Hope Lewis, you know, on his posting subsidy.

But

While we're helping him, we're helping life.

Why should we?

If there isn't any postal subsidy, life could well go under, according to what Feynman tells you.

All right.

That's really the only guy we care about.

Hell, they can eat it.

Well, if they can hold out a while.

If they can hold out a while.

That's clear.

Yeah, it's a light bus.

Uh-huh.

What means I've got to pay more tomorrow?

I'm hurt.

I've been out of touch with that all day long.

I just don't want to hurt you.

I would think he probably will.

Wait, but I'd say the reason I would say that is I don't have the confidence in George Lawson.

George plays golf.

Yeah, yeah.

I said, no, George.

I don't think George is capable of meaning that an individual could be dishonest, to have respect, but be a partisan.

I know.

And I said, we had quite a discussion this morning.

And I said, well, George, what should we do if he gets off the board?

Well, he says, I think we should just go along with the public members and leave a light in the window.

And I said, well, don't you think we ought to just take the shit out of them if they get off the board and say if this ruins phase two and prices are going to go up and that they're blamed for all the leaking toilets in the country?

Well, he said, I don't know whether we want to really break it off at this point.

I said, break it off?

Jesus Christ.

Break it off.

They're breaking it off.

So we've got to protect our headquarters.

And what they'll do, Mike, just a hunch, is they'll go out and blast the whole system, especially prices, right, especially prices, food prices and all that, and say the damn system is a failure, the way the administration is running, and we don't want to have any part of it anymore.

We're just going to get out because the whole thing, not the long short string, but the whole damn thing is no good.

I think that's the strongest position.

All right.

Our answer should be this thing has chances of succeeding as long as these fellows were on there.

It must sadden every American to know that a small group of willful labor tyrants... On the other hand, you would push it then?

Oh, no.

No, no.

I'd keep it in existence.

But I would say we're going to do the best we can under the circumstances.

That's a responsibility now.

That's right.

And it may well be foredoomed.

And if it is, the American people will know the responsibility.

I just want to say that no individual leaders of business or labor thumb their noses at the people of the United States.

Take the responsibility for dooming every other American to high prices and high taxes and high interest rates.

This is the time to shift the blame.

or what I must say is a kind of a different prospect.

Do you mean the effect of price controls?

I think we're in for a rocky six months ahead on this.

So I don't know if it's working, but that's what we're saying.

Yep.

Well, at least August 30th gives us a little light.

All of that, I'll say.

It's worth the exercise.

whether it works or not, the economy, if it just moves, that's far more important.

Yeah.

The other thing that I'd like to see is that I'm afraid is not terribly accurate, but nonetheless it seems to me is available to us, is to say that these food prices that we're going to see go up in the CPI this week are related to the dock strike.

Everybody knows that when you have a Dock Strike, prices go up.

And here we are.

We've just experienced 197 days or 113 days or whatever it is of the Dock Strike, and it's been very crippling to America's economy.

And a dislocation of that kind, as you all know, can't take place in America's economy without our experience in some of these kinds of things.

Now, economists will disagree.

about the causal relationships of these things.

But we do know that there's a vital piece of legislation out there before the Congress that's been there for two years about these strikes.

One of the reasons that we wanted that is so that the American economy has a chance to level off, da-da-da-da-da.

Herb Stein has said it's just terrible.

He said, OK, never support that.

I said, well, Herb knows that most people think that the Dock Strike has something to do with prices.

He says, well, I know they do, but they're wrong.

Anyway, there's a little, there's a little, uh, I'll be honest, when it's so hot out there, sir.

Well, happy Thursday.