young people just like Pitter and myself. At that time, by the way, I had the following debts outstanding:
—$1,000 on our neat little house.
—$200 to my dear parents.
—$110 to my loyal and devoted brother.
—$15 to our fine dentist, a warm-hearted Jewish man for whom we had the greatest respect.
—$4.35 to our kindly grocer, an old Italian who always had a good word for everybody. I still remember his name. Tony.
— 75 cents to our Chinese laundryman, a slightly built fellow who nonetheless worked long into the night over his shirts, just as I did over my law books, so that his children might one day attend the college of their choice. I am sure they have grown up to be fine and outstanding Chinese-Americans.
— 60 cents to the Polish man, or Polack, as the Vice President would affectionately call him, who delivered the ice for our old-fashioned icebox. He was a strong man with great pride in his native Poland.
We also owed moneys amounting to $2.90 to a wonderful Irish plumber, a wonderful Japanese — American handyman and a wonderful couple from the deep South who happened to be of the same race as we were, and whose children played with ours in perfect harmony, despite the fact that they were from another region. I am proud to say that every last dime that we owed to these wonderful people, I paid back through long hard hours of work in my law office. And the point I wish to make to you tonight, my fellow Americans, is that because of those long, hard hours of work, I believe myself qualified today to understand in all its cunning and clever intricacies the legal action that this fugitive has brought against the sport made famous by Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker, Roger Hornsby, Honus Wagner, Walter Johnson, Christy Mathewson and Ted Williams — Hall of Famers all, and men that America can well be proud of.
And let me tell you this: having studied this case in all its ramifications, I find I can only concur in the wise opinion of the Commissioner of Baseball when he says that a victory for this fugitive would inevitably lead to the death of the great game that has probably done more to make American boys into strong, decent and law-abiding men than any single institution in the land. Frankly, I do not know of a better way for our enemies to undermine the youth of this country, than to destroy this game of baseball and all it represents.
Now there is another question you may want to ask, and it is this: “Mr. President, if Curt Flood is out to undermine the youth of this country by destroying baseball, where could he possibly find a lawyer who would be willing to take his case to court?”
Now I am going to be as forthright as I know how in answering that question.
Scrupulous and honest and dedicated to the principles of justice as ninety-nine and ninetenths of the lawyers in this country are, there is in my profession, as in any other, I’m afraid, that tiny percentage who will do and say anything if the stakes are high enough or the price is right. In law school our professors used to call them “ambulance-chasers” and “shysters.” Unfortunately, these men cling not only to the bottom rungs of the profession, which would be bad enough, but on rare occasions manage to climb to the very top — yes, even to positions of great responsibility and power. Now I needn’t remind you of the scandal that took place here in Washington during the tenure of the last administration. You all remember that a lawyer appointed by my predecessor to the Supreme Court of the United States, the highest court in the entire land, had to resign as a justice of that court because of financial wrongdoing. Horrifying as that incident was to every decent American, there seems to me nothing to be gained now by reawakening the sense of moral outrage that swept the nation at that time. As some of you will be quick to point out, there were actually two men who found it necessary to resign from the Supreme Court, after they had been appointed justices of that court by my predecessor. But whether there was one, two, three, four or five, I simply do not believe it is in the interests of national unity to harp upon the errors, grievous though they were, of an administration that you voters, in your wisdom, repudiated three years ago. What is past is past; no one knows that better than I do. If I recall to you now the names of these two men who found it necessary to tender unprecedented resignations to the highest court in the land, it is only to answer, as forthrightly as I know how, your question, “What kind of lawyer would represent Curt Flood?”
The two men who resigned from the Supreme Court were Mr. Abe Fortas and Mr. Arthur Goldberg. My fellow Americans, the name of the lawyer representing Charles Curtis Flood is Arthur Goldberg. G-o-l-d-b-e-r-g.
Now, before I am accused of trying to shock or alarm the Ameriean public, let me say that I myself am not the least bit shocked or alarmed by this turn of events. Having served on the highest court of the land, Mr. Goldberg undoubtedly now knows the ins and the outs of the law as well as the most devious lawyer in the country. Moreover, none of us should be surprised to discover a man who has fallen from the pinnacle of his profession, willing to try just about anything to get back into the public eye. Before the Flood case is concluded, I would not be surprised to find Mr. Abe Fortas joining forces with Mr. Arthur Goldberg in defense of Charles Curtis Flood. Now you may say to me, “But surely, Mr.
President, any man who wishes to destroy the game of baseball, and enlists such attorneys as these in his attempt to accomplish that end, is not even entitled to a hearing in court. Not only is he making a mockery of our entire judicial system, but in order for him to go ‘up against the system’ we, the American taxpayers, have to pay for the upkeep of the very system he is working to annihilate. If we allow that, then we might as well allow selfconfessed Communists to teach our children in the classrooms. We might as well throw down our arms right now in the battle for freedom, and hand over our schools and our courtrooms without a fight to the avowed enemies of democracy.”
Well, let me assure you that I couldn’t agree more. In fact, we are right now studying ways of restoring the dignity and majesty and, sanctity of old to the courtrooms of the land. As, you know, one experiment that we have tried with some success here in Washington is the “Justice in the Streets Program.” This is a program whereby sentencing and punishment, for capital crimes as well as felonies and misdemeanors, is delivered on the spot at the very moment the crime is committed, or even appears to have been committed. Through J.I.T.S.P. and related methods of expediting the judicial process, we hope to be able not only to unclog the court calendars but to wind down the whole trial system by Election Day 1972. Now, winding down the trial system will of course be a great boon to the dignity of our judges, who will no longer be forced to demean themselves by dealing with the most undesirable elements in the population. Our judges, so terribly overworked as they are today, hopefully will not have to deal with any elements of the population once the trial system is completely phased out. This will leave them free for the reflection and reading that is so essential to maintaining a high level of judicial wisdom. The second benefit to be derived from replacing the archaic and slow-moving trial system by more modern judicial methods is this: the courtrooms of this land will once again be a wonderfully inspiring place for the schoolchildren of America to visit. I see a day, in fact, when parents will be able to send their children off to visit a courtroom without fear that they will have to witness anything inappropriate or unsettling to the eyes or ears of a growing youngster. I see a day in which not only schoolchildren, but mothers holding their babies, will be able to walk through the halls of justice to observe the judges in their wonderful black robes, relieved of the time-consuming burdens of the courtroom, gathering the wisdom of the ages from their thinking and their lawbooks. I see a day when schoolchildren and mothers holding their babies will be able to sit in the jury boxes, just as though a real trial were underway, and in this way experience at firsthand the age-old grandeur of a legal tradition that has come down to us in all its glory from Anglo-Saxon times.