[Letter from John W. Stanford to Maury Maverick, Jr., October 8, 1964] Page: 3 of 10
5 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this letter.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
stated to you once before, I think that all indivi-
duals concerned about the defense of civil liberties have
he responsibility of fighting for civil liberties accord-
ing to their own understanding, in the manner they think
best. I would never argue that the attorneys represent-,
me in this Case No. 40 before the Supreme Court should
necessarily agree with my positions. All of you are frey
to make clear whatever differences you have with me, if
you desire to do so, and to state these differences before
the Court, if you think that proper. But the ACLU attor-
neys have no right to set forth, in a brief presented in
my name, positions and arguments that contradict my clear
private and public position nrid that contradict my *-rr u-.
ments in legal proceedirjs under thJ M:c.:arr 'r:ct.
The brief develops three lines. 3f ar umut, summariz d on
pages ?-8. Arguments I and II are very sound and further
develop questions raised in the petition for certiorari.
Personally, I think it unfortunate that the arguments in
the brief are not as broad as the arguments in the peti-
tion. The petition speaks of my being "deprived of freed L.
of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of associa-
tion." (p. 2) It assumes the constitutionality of the
uppression Act only ndo (p. 10); and after listing;
the "cluster of crimes set orth in the Suppression Act
nd the Control Lew, it states (p. 11)
uhile such clustering of the crimes Lor wihick.
evidence is being sought is unconstitutional evo:
if each of the crimes for which the evidence i
being gathered is a properly defined crime cap;-
ble of withatandin; constitutional challenge, n
as here, the provisions of the statute clearly
trench upon constitutionally protected activity,
this bundling of statutes for which evidence re-'r -
ing violations is bei - Sou ht become<: a -
the constitutionality to the provisions of the laws that
outlaw membership in the Communist Party, that require the
registration of Communists with the Texas Department of
"ublic Safety, and other provisions. There is here ini-
cated a line of argument that not only attacks Section
Nine of the Suppression Act, which authorizes searches,
but that also defends freedom of association and that
attacks both laws as a whole for denying this freedom.
Zhe attack on the Texas laws in the brief is narrower,
leaves out a defense of freedom of association, and in
so far as the First Amendment is concerned, limits itself
to a defense of freedom of speech and of the press. (I
realize, of course, that in its Conclusion, referring to
the Constitutir-n of the "trte of Texts, the brief rakes
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This letter can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Letter.
Stanford, John W., Jr. [Letter from John W. Stanford to Maury Maverick, Jr., October 8, 1964], letter, October 8, 1964; (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth1261426/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Private Collection of Mario Marcel Salas.