35396 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE November 21, 1969

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED

STATES

The Senate in executive session resumed the consideration of the nomination of Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr., of

South Carolina, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United

States.

The VICE PRESIDENT. All time on

the nomination has expired.

The question is, Will the Senate advise

and consent to the nomination of Clement Haynsworth, Jr., to be an Associate

Justice of the Supreme Court of the

United States?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask

for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will

call the roll.

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Chair

wishes to caution the gallery that there

will be no outbursts at the announcement

of this vote.

The legislative clerk called the roll.

The result was announced—yeas 45,

nays 55, as follows:

[No. 154 Ex.]

YEAS—45

Aiken

Allen

Allen

Baker

Bellmon

Bennett

Boggs

Byrd, Va.

Byrd, W. Va.

Cook

Coo k

Curtis

Dole

Dominick

Eastland

Anderson

Bayh

Bible

Brooke

Burdick

Cannon

Case

Church

Cooper

Cranston

Dodd

Eagleton

Goodell

Gore

Griffin

Harris

Hart

Hartke

Hatfield

Ellender

Ervin

Fannin

Fong

Fulbright

Goldwater

Goldwater

Gurney

Hansen

Holland

Holland

Hruska

Jordan, N.C

Jordan,

McClellan

NAYS—5 5

Hughes

Inouye

Jackson

Jacks

Jordan, Idaho

Kennedy

Magnuson

Mansfield

Mathias

McCarthy

McGee

McGee

McIntyre

Metcalf

Miller

Mondale

Montoya

Mont

Muskie

Mundt

Murphy

Pearson

Prouty

Randolph

Russell

Smith, 111.

Sparkman

Spong

Stennis

Stennis

Talmadge

Thurmond

Tower

Young, N. Dak

Nelson

Packwood

Pastore

Pell

Percy

Proxmire

Ribicoff

Saxbe

Schwelker

Scott

Smith, Maine

Symington

Tydings

Williams, N.J.

Williams, N.J.

Yarborough

Young, Ohio

So the nomination was rejected.

Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, we have

just had a vote on a very important question, and of course there is no useful

purpose in trying to reargue the questions on that matter. However, there is

one discrepancy which has occurred in

this whole matter to which I feel it my

obligation to call very serious attention.

In Newsweek there appeared an article

on the Haynsworth matter in which the

junior Senator from Kentucky (Mr.

COOK) was quoted, and which I am informed is not the truth. The article takes

the President's counsel, Clark Mollenhoff,

to task very severely.

While no man, of course, makes points

by losing his temper—and I believe Mr.

Mollenhoff did on that occasion—I want

to call the attention of the Senate to the

alleged facts which were contained in the

Mankiewicz-Braden article, which were

in issue in Mr. Mollenhoff's television

appearance and then compare them with

the facts with respect to the situation

as it existed. In issue was the transfer

of certain property which Judge Haynsworth bought from Furman University,

from which he graduated.

The Mankiewciz-Braden article is so

slanted with little words that the only

conclusion anyone can draw from it is

that Judge Haynsworth was indulging

in a lot of hanky-panky to deprive the

Internal Revenue Service of tax dollars

it justly deserved. In fact, the article

says that.

Mr. President, for many, many years,

gifts made by people to educational institutions have been a valid legal deduction under our income tax system. This

article points out that if it can be demonstrated that it was not done by prior

arrangement, it was perfectly legal.

What happened was that in 1958 Senator and Mrs. Charles Daniel started

the construction of a home, and then

conveyed their home in 2 years, half each

year, to Furman University at a price of

$115,000. Some time after that, as a

matter of fact, 11 days after they received the deed, or the deed had been

recorded, Judge Haynsworth purchased

that house from Furman University, and

in return gave his own house plus $65,000

in cash to Furman University.

The Mankiewicz-Braden article is so

slanted as to be classified completely irresponsible, if not a purposeful attempt

to mislead the American people. At one

place it reads:

The process of transfer was arranged over

a five-year period, during each of which

years Haynsworth donated a one-fifth interest, stating the total value of the property

still at $115,000. He claimed a charitable

deduction in each of the five years.

If one takes that statement on the face

of it, there still is nothing wrong with

anything Judge Haynsworth did, but it

does not state the truth. If I had been

in the position of Mr. Mollenhoff on that

newscast with those two particular

columnists who had written such things,

I think I would have felt the same indignation, the same righteous anger—

and it was righteous anger—that he felt

at that time.

The article goes on to say:

On April 1, 1968, Haynsworth completed

the transaction with a deed of the entire

property, as a part of which he and Mrs.

Haynsworth retained a life estate—the right

to live in the residence as long as either is

alive.

When you look at these two paragraphs, it is apparent that the plain and

obvious attempt of this misleading article is to make people believe that Judge

Haynsworth somehow trimmed the taxpayers of this country in the transaction.

The truth is that Judge Haynsworth did

have a house, which he traded to the university. After he bought the former

Daniel house, he and his wife invested

$10,000 in it, in air conditioning and

other improvements, and he still, when

he sold the house, valued it at $115,000.

Anyone knows that Judge Haynsworth

bent over backward to be more than fair

in his evaluation.

The point of it is that out of these two

transactions, Furman University got

$115,000 twice—once from the Daniel

family—the house—and once from the

Haynsworth family, in cash and other

tangibles. Judge Haynsworth bought the

house, improved it and then turned

around and gave it back to the one who

had sold it to him. There is an implication here that his home might not have

been worth $115,000 but the facts are that

the university got $65,000 in cash, and

they got $50,000 for the home which

Judge Haynsworth gave them in addition to that. It is unarguable that Judge

Haynsworth traded off a home which,

at that time, in market value, was worth

perhaps as much as $150,000. They had

paid $115,000 for it in cash, and they put

in $10,000 or more in improvements.

Referring back to the first paragraph

I read, he said he claimed a charitable

deduction, and this is wholly in the context of $115,000 over the 5 years.

This article is what Mr. Mollenhoff

called a fraud. It is a fraud on the public, because actually Judge Haynsworth

did not take a deduction for a charitable

contribution of $115,000, but rather he

only took a charitable deduction of $52,-

673.44, which is the $115,000 diminished

by the amount that the life estate involved. So his charitable deduction was

less than 50 percent of the actual amount

that the university did receive by reason of the contribution. We could not

fault him if he had claimed the entire

$115,000 but, contrary to the BradenMankiewicz report to which I have referred, he actually made allowance for

the life estate he and Mrs. Haynsworth

retained. A life estate, of course, is a

right of use during their lifetime, and

Judge Haynsworth therefore discounted

the $115,000 by an amount calculated

on the basis of the life expectancy of

he and his wife, regardless of how long

they really might use it. Braden and

Mankiewicz did not mention this, however in giving the public the "true

facts."

I think the actual facts should be made

clear at this point, Mr. President. I think

a great injustice has been done to Mr.

Mollenhoff, a Pulitzer Prize winner, a

man who had researched this matter to

be sure that Judge Haynsworth had not

done anything improper, and who knew

the facts, which obviously Mr. Braden

and Mr. Mankiewicz did not know,

even though they purported to.

Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point, first, the article published in Newsweek magazine entitled

"The Judge Come to Judgment," calling

particular attention to the last four

paragraphs of it, in which Mr. Mollenhoff is referred to. Second, to have

printed, the Frank Mankiewicz-Tom

Braden column of November 9, 1969,

which is entitled "The Strange Case of

Haynsworth's House"; and third, an absolutely factual analysis of what did actually occur. If any American can read

these three items without becoming fully

convinced that it was the desire and the

purpose of Mankiewicz and Braden to

downgrade and degrade Judge Haynsworth, and that in doing so they have

distorted the facts unmercifully, then I