Georgetown l a w UDeeklo Non-Profit Org. U.S. Postage

P A I DWashington, D.C. Permit No. 3901

Vol. V, No. 5 Pi ice: 20 cents Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. Tuesday, Oct. 6, 1970

JURIS V

Destruction of a People

Sullivan

Grade Information In Faculty Hands

Dean Roy Schotland was: : asked last week if and when j i n f o r m a t i o n on the;

: breakdown of last year’s: :grades would be made,; ^ava i l ab l e to studen ts .; : Schotland indicated that a j: dicision on the availability of; this data would be made by; the faculty in the near future.;:

On April 8, 1970 The Georgetown Law Weekly published an article written by Joseph Taliaferro. In it he discussed what he considered a “novel case; Joseph Band o f the Nez Perce Tribe v. United States, the first suit in the history o f our jurisprudence attempting to recover damages for the destruction o f a people as a social political and economic entity." We wish now to highlight the viewpoint taken by the United States, as printed by its counsel, John B. Sullivan.

Mr. Sullivan attended Georgetown Law Center. He was Regional Attorney for the War Manpower Commission, 1943-45, and Attorney for the Veteran's Administration, 1945-50. Since 1950, Mr. Sullivan has been associated with the Department o f Justice, Indian Claims- Section o f Land and Natural Resource Division.

The facts set forth herein demonstrate quite clearly that the Joseph Band of Nez Perce Indians have no claim against the United States for the claims alleged in their petition, namely;

a. Claim based upon land ownership.b. Claim for damages from trespass upon lands.c. Claim for imprisonment in Indian Territory.Petitioners do not devote much of fheir brief to these

alleged grounds for recovery. No doubt this is because they realize that there is no possibility of recovery on these

The Admissions ProcedureBy J. Metelski

As we and the world are probably aware of by now, the incoming class at GULC is the largest in the school's history - 621 students, over 100 more than last year.

What happened? Did an IBM machine miscount letters of acceptance? Was the Admissions C om m ittee overcome by a m o m e n t a r y s e i z u r e of benevolence? Did the Law School seek to avoid contractual expenses of tearing down the old Law Center by having the freshman class do it during class breaks?

In seeking an answer to these grave questions, this reporter spoke with both faculty and students. The thrust of the questioning was essentially: Was the size of this class intentional or u n in ten tio n a l, and, if in ten tio n a l, then why; if u n i n t en t i ona l , then what hanDened?

Bureaucratic Foul-up?

The preliminary stages of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n ev i d e n c e d

Admissions Chaos?

abundant suspicions that a bureaucratic foul-up may have occurred to which no one would admit. After all, the reasoning went, there seemed to be no question that a switch from three to four student sections at registration evidenced a last minute “ fix” to accommodate the unexpected.

^ etten fa m t6e *DeoHIn accordance with the policy

o f encouraging serious discussion about the Law Center and other matters of mutual interest to the administration, faculty and student body, I am calling an open meeting in John C arroll Auditorium between 11:30 a.m. and approximately 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 21. I am calling a similar meeting at John Carroll between 5:00 p. m. and approximately 6:15 p.m. on Thursday, October 22 - classes to begin after the termination of the meeting. I intend, in the period between now and October 21, to engage in preliminary discussions with the elected representatives of the student body, as well as with r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of o ther

organizations if they wish, for the purpose of insuring that the open meeting will produce a fruitful exchange of ideas.

I am aware of the “open l e t t e r ” published in the September 22 issue of the LAW WEEKLY addressed to me and my three colleagues, Deans Schotland, Oldham and Fischer, by a group referring to itself as the Coalition of Law Student Organizat ions . The let ter announced a meet ing for October 7th, 1970 at 11:30 a.m. f o r a d i a l o g u e a m o n g administrators, faculty and the student body. I am also aware that in the same issue of the LAW WEEKLY the Executive Board of the Student Bar

(Continued on page 4)

An exhaust ing week of polling the Georgetown campus (?) turned up a good deal of opinion and conjecture and some hesitation to discuss the matter. One rather simple and straightforward explanation was heard several times, however. This was that the school had gone about admitting students from the on-hand applications “pool” in the usual manner, but the applications “pool” did not respond in the usual manor.

Statistical Irregularity?

To ascertain such contentions by their requisite universality, Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were contacted on their admissions experiences this year.

It is noted here that any in-depth evaluation of this topic would require significant experience in the administrative process. There are, nevertheless, certain elements recognizable to the layman that are not without meaning and therefore subject to interpretation.

The process by which “x” number of students are finally registered at GULC out of “y” number of applicants is largely controlled by statistics. Certain parameters are measured during

(Continued on page 7)

grounds because the land claims and the trespass claim have been litigated and discharged by judgment and that the so-called imprisonment claim or claims if any such exist are individual personal claims and the Indian Claims Commission has no jurisdiction of individual or personal claims.

The U.S. provides the following findings as to the above three claims:

In Docket No. 175 presently pending before the Indian Claims Commission the Nez Perce Tribe of Indians, of which the petitioner, Joseph Band, is an integral part, has been awarded aboriginal title to 13,204,000 acres including the reservation established for them in 1855. Nez Perce Tribe of Indians v. United States, 18 Ind.Cl.Comm. 1 (1967). In due course a trial will be held on the fair market value of this aboriginal title area as of the date of extinguishment of the Indians’ title, 1859. A judgment will be awarded to the Nez Perce Tribe should they prove that the consideration paid by the United States for extin gu ish m en t o f their aboriginal t it le was unconscionable.

Pursuant to the Treaty of June 9, 1863, 14 Stat. 647, ratified April 17, 1867, the Nez Perce Tribe ceded to the United States 7,787,000 acres of the' 1855 reservation established for them. The Nez Perce Tribe, including the Joseph Band, was paid $352,394.94 under that treaty and also recovered an additional $4,297,605.06 in Docket No. 175-A before this Commission for the same land. Nez Perce Tribe v. United States, 8 Ind. Cl. Comm. 220,270 (1959). The land claims in the present case, Docket No.

(Continued on page 4)

Page’s Seminar Spurs Interest

By Sanford K. Ain

This sem ester Professor Joseph A. Page is again teaching his “Lawyering in the Public Interest” seminar.

Thi r ty-f ive second and third-year students are currently enrolled in the seminar, which permits each student to work on a public interest project. The members of the class have selected a wide variety of cases and projects. For example, one student is helping two attorneys at Covington & Burling defend the State of Maine in a suit brought by a number of large oil companies. The companies are challenging the Maine Coastal Conveyance Act of 1970, which seeks to regulate the pollution of Maine’s coastal waters and navigable streams. Another student is assisting in litigation

i n v o l v i n g t h e a l l e g e d non-enforcement of the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act.

When asked about the future of public interest law firms Professor Page said: “This field is just coming into existence. A problem with public interest firms is money. Law schools can perform a vital service by helping them...we can help them to survive.” Page also feels that more students would like to participate in these programs but that some are restricted from doing so because of the heavy

•workload compared to the low number of credit hours allotted the course. Although Page’s request for four hours of course credit was turned down, he indicated that “if the seminar works out this year the way 1 hope it works out, I intend to get more hours of credit for it.”

Joe gets a flash from Ralph

GEORGETOWN LAW WEEKLY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1970PAGE 2

IdEst‘What We Have Here Is A Lack Of Communication’

To numbers of people at GULC there are numbers of things wrong at the Law Center. Complaints span the spectrum from those of a general nature to those of a personal one. People are asking questions. To take a few examples: Why does Georgetown have the lowest per capita allocation of library funds of any law school in the area? Why can’t we have public address systems in at least some of the larger classrooms so that we can actually hear what we’re paying $1975 per year to learn? Why is the scheduling system set up in such a manner that 180 students who needed to take Evidence had to choose one particular section? How did Georgetown end up with 100 more students in the first year class than they had, presumably, anticipated? Finally, and perhaps most pervasive, is Georgetown a second-rate law school?

Students seeking to find solutions to these problems and to their personal ones vis a vis the Law Center are frustrated; frustration naturally turns to anger if it isn’t relieved. And perhaps at the root of the frustration lay the biggest problem of all. The Law Center lacks something intangible, something hard to put your finger on, but basically, it may be summed up (for lack of a better cliche) as the absence of a sense of identity and communication with itself.

Students and faculty come to 506 E Street on five days a week for a specified number of hours and then go home again. There really is little or no feeling a Law Center community in the intellectual or social sense of the word. The obvious answer if that the physical plant itself, with attendant winos, contributes significantly to the situation; that things will be great in the new building. But will they be? And why can’t an effort be made now to overcome some of the difficulties? I’m not suggesting that we could or should return to the typical Joe College type of school spirit, but I am suggesting more cohesiveness.

Efforts are beginning to be made toward this end — the establishment of Student/Faculty Committees which will report regularly to the Law Center on their activities and hold open “hearings” on topics within their respective jurisdictions; Associate Deans OJdba/n and SchotJand, are now available in the Student Lounge during specified hours each week; the nascent SBA-Law Weekly “Action Line”. But these are only beginnings, and their success is yet to be tried.

If we are to find responses to our queries, if we want solutions to the problems which plague the Law ('enter, if we really desire to improve the quality of legal education here, we must join together to make our voices loud enough (more than a muffled grumble in the night) to be heard and we must establish more, new channels through which we might communicate. It is only through this ad hoc; spontaneous type o f communication that education can be a stimulating, meaningful experience.

Uttui (Center fublirntimmEditor-in-Chief......................................................... Jo GramlingBusiness Editor.................................................... Allen J. KrugerDistribution Editor..................................... Kenneth F. Carobus

(Sporgptonnt Cam HJrrkly StutstmtEDITORIAL BOARD

Managing E ditor.............Associate E ditor.............Production Editor .........Features Editor .............Assistant Features Editors

............. Tuck Miller

. . Henry J. Plog, Jr.

. .Lewis Greenbaum

............. Alan HurstBelford Lawson III, . . . James Sandman

Photography E d ito r .................................................. Scott BlazeCartoonist ..........................................Blair Lee, IV, Eric SmithStaff .............................................. Steve Durovic, John Fadden,

Phil Armstrong, Warren Connelly, James DeLancey, Larry Fox, Bob Redmond, Lucius Rivers, Nina Elsohn, Patrick O’Connor, Rick Galvan, John Metelsky, Lyn Ochberg

Th e Georgetow n Law W eekly is published tw e n ty -fo u r times a year, Th e views expressed herein are those of the newspaper or Its by-lined reporters and do not necessarily reflect those o f the student body, adm in istration or facu lty unless otherw ise specifically stated.

M ailing address: 5 06 E S treet, N .W ., W ashington, D .C . 2 0 0 0 1 . Tele. 7 8 3 -3 9 1 2 .

Criminal Law Journal Comes To GeorgetownBy Phil Armstrong

The Law Center is the new h o m e of a maj or legal publ i cat ion, the American Criminal Law Quarterly. The m a g a z i n e is the official publication of the American Bar Associ a t i on’s Criminal Law section.

Formery edited by Professor Paul Wilson at the University of Kansas School of Law, the Quarterly has been brought to Georgetown under the auspices of Associate Professor Eugene N o o n a n . T h e s h i f t to Georgetown reflects a major organizat ion change in the publication. At Kansas it was edited jointly by the ABA’s Section of Criminal Law and by th e S c h o o l of Law; at Georgetown it will be published solely by the ABA. It is not an official Law Center publication.

Professor Noonan was elected editor at the annual meeting of the Bar Association in July. Mr. Noonan came to Georgetown in 1967 after practicing law in Chicago for 5 years. He teaches Criminal Justice I and II and Professional Responsibility.

Five students have been selected from a group of 35to 40 applicants for positions on the staff; Prof. Noonan is delegating a signficant portion of the e d i t o r i a l and managerial responsibility to these students. They are Mildred Matesich, Barry Mayefsky, Robert Muse, A1 Ross, and Howard Stahl. All are day students.

Clinical and Academic Focus

The Quarterly is principally d i r e c t e d t o w a r d ac t i ve practitioners in the criminal area are explored with both a practical and an academic focus. An appraisal of several of the more recent issues indicates that the Quarterly reflects currently raging disputes both within the Bar and throughout the country, e.g. what “law and order” means and how we might best achieve this elusive goal. Avowedly non-partisan and non-political, the Quarterly is able to present the many conflicting viewpoints

concerning conflicts between courts and criminals, between p o l i c e ef fec t iveness and effectiveness of our criminal procedural guarantees, and between the need to reform our wrongdoers and the need to keep them off the streets. Prof. Noonan has indicated that he i n t e n d s to maintain the

representative political aspect of the publication. The magazine provides an excellent forum for academically sound presentation of emerging developments in the criminal law, opposing the avalanche of contradictory “law and order” and “permissiveness” rhetoric.

The periodical solicits articles principally from practitioners and judges, but includes contributions from legislators, law professors, and the student staff. Currently, circulation is over six thousand.

The first issue to be published by the Georgetown staff will deal principal ly with the recently passed Organized Crime Bill, the merits of which have been subjected to some severe discussion. The Bar has placed no limitation of the duration of the Quarterly stay at the Law Center, and it is anticipated that it will provide an excellent aid to the practicing lawyer and other interested layman for some time.

Letters to the EditorEditorGeorgetown Law Weekly 506 E Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20001

My dear Editor:

Would you kindly print the following well-known comment

Cinema

The WandererBy R. Scott Blaze

The Wanderer is not a first-run movie. The present screening at the Biograph is at least the second run in D.C. First released in 1969 with apparently little response, the film has been released again, this time to the apparent delight of at least some cinema commentators.

This film is not full of social comment; in fact it is totally devoid of social meaning as well it should be. It is not a film which admi ts of character discussion, of acting excellence, of timeliness; rather it embraces a purity of cinematic expression which never admits of any bond with anything other than what is immediately presented on the screen. It is a film, or more

of mine for a reply to Miss Frankel’s article?

“Frankly, my dear, 1 just don’t give a damn.”

I am indebted to you.

Most appreciatively, Rhett Butler

precisely, an emotive experience which one may take or leave, but which will be meaningless if mulled-over for days or even hours.

The story of the film is explained wholly by the title. It is about a wanderer; better, it is a w a n d e r e r . Physical ly, emotionally, personally, it is a wanderer. It is a wanderer’s life, through all its seasons, through all its loves, and finally through its conclusion. Whether the conclusion is a final success or a final defeat is up to the mind experiencing the film - it is also irrelevant. The film starts in the springtime; of the character’s lives, of the year, of knowledge and experience. It ends in

(Continued on page 6)

TUESDAY. OCTOBER 6, 1970 GEORGETOWN LAW WEEKLY

Night Students Meet II

p Professor’s C om er PAGE 3

Joe PageA special “ Orientation”

session held last Monday night focussed on the problems and possibilities confronting evening division students.

Jeff Moss, S.B.A. President, alerted the students to the hazards of encountering “local 5th and E Street entrepreneurs who have invested in guns” and suggested that those leaving GULC at night so do in pairs. In addition, Moss encouraged night students to participate in the u p c o m i n g S t u d e n t Bar Association elections and to a p p l y f o r p o s i t i o n s on Student-Faculty Committees. He pointed out that, although most night students are working full-time and are hesitant to take on any further obligations, in the past they have served with di s t inct ion in both these capacities.

Dean Fisher Understands

Dean Adrian Fisher was the main speaker of the evening. Although the Dean did not go to night school himself, he stated that he had faced many of the problems peculiar to part-time students and felt that he could understand and appreciate their situation. Dean Fisher indicated that he disagrees strongly with the attitude taken by some law

By Lynn Ochberg

Dean Fisher talks to night students

schools, such as Harvard, that night schools downgrade the status of the legal profession and should be eliminated. On the contrary, Dean Fisher said that evening schools and their graduates have served the profession and the nation well and announced that, in line with his beliefs, he plans to devote 25% of his time to teaching at night.

Joseph Luman, a member of the night division who has been

lauded by Moss as a prime ,example of “what an evening student can become,” concluded the evening by encouraging part-time students to become involved in Law Center activities w h i c h , he f e e l s , a dd immeasurably to one’s legal educat ion. Luman, who is married and has three children, was last year’s Leahy Cup winner and is presently a member of the Law Journal staff.

The My Lai MassacreBy Rick Galvan

The author was stationed in Vietnam for a year, and while he was there, he worked closely with the Defense Department’s investigation o f My Lai.

Setting aside for the moment the moral and legal questions raised by the My Lai, take a look at the soldiers involved in the alleged atrocity.

The soldiers of Charlie Company are infantrymen. In Army talk they are called “ legs” or “grunts” because they do the war’s dirty work of searching out and destroying the enemy. Most of the men are draftees.

Like all infantrymen in Vietnam, the men of Charlie Company operate in the field for weeks at a time. They carry f o o d , m e d i c a l suppl ies, ammuni t i on, sleeping gear, poncho, l et ters and other essentials on their backs or in their pockets. In their hands they hold their weapons; the weapon is their best friend; it comes between him and death. They carry close to 70 pounds in the hundred degree heat and in the 90 percent humidity of Vietnam. When they are in the field, the men are lucky if they get a couple of hot meals and a change of clothes each week. Mail comes about as often as the hot chow. Close friendships form in the field. These friendships know neither racial, re lig ious, nor educat ional boundaries.

While picking their way through jungle underbrush or walking across rice paddies and roads, the men fear the booby-trap the most of all enemy weapons. This weapon unleashes its lethal venom when least expected and since the booby-trap works automatically the men have no enemy soldier on which to revenge the deaths of their friends.

During the day Charlie

Company moves aggressively against the enemy. The men search dense jungle areas, small villages, and lush farmlands for the enemy. On a good day they see nothing and none of them is hurt or killed. In the late afternoon Charlie Company sets up its Night Defensive Position. The men string concertina wire around the position, set out claymore mines, and dig fox holes. The men take turns on guard duty ajpd they stay alert while on guard because the VC strike at night . During a

ttwenty-four hour period the men average about five hours of sleep.

It’s little wonder, then, that the men in Charlie Company do their level best to stay out of the field. They feign sickness often. They refuse to take the weekly malaria pills in hopes of catching malaria. It’s far better to be sick than to be dead.

On the day the men of Charlie Company walked into My Lai, the experiences of the three weeks of field operations weigh heavily on them. They have taken a lot of “kills” by booby-traps in the My Lai area, a region known to be highly sympathetic to the VC and they have had few opportunities to revenge the deaths of their friends. The men who walk into the village are mad, confused, tired, homesick soldiers.

What happened next in My Lai on that March 1968 day will be determined as finding of facts by the courts. The courts may find that the men committed acts which amounted to an atrocity, but may we say, then, they were responsible for their acts. To those of us who feel that My Lai presents certain moral issues, I ask this question - are the men of Charlie Company who live under conditions of extreme hardships, the men we

ask to make complicated moral and legal decisions? Are these the men we ask to answer whether the individual soldier has the moral obligation to disobey an order given to him by a military superior when the society in which the soldier lives considers the act immoral?

Have you been plagued of late by not knowing the condi t ion of the drunken elephants of the Punjab? Well put yourself at ease. You’ll find what is probably the most complete American collection of data on the subject just around the corner in Room 310 of 426 5th Street. There, filed under “ T ” for ‘Trivia,” Professor J o s e p h Page d i l i g e n t l y accumulates all the news that’s fit to print about the tipsy beasts.

This unlikely wealth of information is perhaps the least but definitely not the last of Prof. Page’s thick files. His s tudent s in Torts are well acquainted with the depth of his knowledge in the automobile safety and products liability fields. But his contribution to the public’s awareness of the nature and dangers of chemical weapons and MACE is national in scope. Some insight into Professor Page’s approach to the problem will show why.

While gathering all the known an d a v a i l a b l e t echni ca l information about MACE and related substances he instigated an ongoing study of tort cases brought by victims of its use. Prof. Page keeps in touch with lawyers handling these cases, and provides them with any new information he finds. From these lawyers, in turn, he acquires the latest expert medical knowledge about the physical effects of MACE on the human body. To supplement these findings, he keeps a running file of news accounts of actual incidents in which MACE was used or discussed. After applying a careful legal analysis to this collection of concrete informat ion, Professor Page wrote an article for the June 1969 issue of the Georgetown Law Journal which must be counted as one of the most thorough coverages of a modern

Students UnitedBy Robert R. Redmond

A former editor of the Georgetown Law Weekly, Barry Mayefsky, has begun a student group which should prove a welcome alternative to militant campus organizations. In a period when student militancy seems to be in vogue the A m e r i c a n Associat ion of Students United could not have been organized at a more opportune time.

The call is out for a de-escalation of confrontation of the campus. A.A.S.U. hopes to share in this venture of de-escalation of confrontation on the campus. A.A.S.U. hopes to share in this venture of de-escalation. It means to share by fostering progress within our society through legal means. Mr. Mayefsky feels that lawyers should and must assume a large role ir^the community through informing the underprivileged of their rights, by educating consumers, by encouraging the p r o p e r f u n c t i o n i n g of government agencies, for the public interests. The goals of A.A.S.U. do not end here’.

A.A.S.U. GoalsThe organization hopes to

provide research teams that would approach problems in our society in an analytical way. In doing so A.A.S.U. has recruited

members from some of the nationsmost prestigious medical schools, law schools, graduate schools, and undergraduate colleges and universities. This action represents an attempt to organize members so that a problem can be tackled from many perspectives rather than simply in a legal sense.

T a k e t h e problem of pollution, for example; one can easily realize how such a problem could be worked out on a local level with the combined efforts of many people from different professions such as medicine, law, and sociology.

Blue RibbonAdvisors

In order to work within the system the organization has called on the presidents and deans of many of the nation’s u n i v e r s i t i e s t o endor se A.A.S.U.’s plans for action. Furthermore, A.A.S.U. is now in the process of contacting men of outstanding repute and stature such as Ralph Nader, Chief Justice Warren Burger, Senator Edmund Muskie, and Senator Edward Kennedy to act as advisors to the organization.

The A.A.S.U. offers a viable alternative to students who feel the “ sys t em” real ly isn’t working.

public concern.He publ ished a similar

account for the layman in Commonweal Magazine and soon found himself testifying to Senator Frank Moss before the Senate Commerce Consumer Subcommittee hearing on “The Public Sale of Protective Chemical Sprays.” Then the fat hit the fire. There was national press coverage and the Food and Drug Administration launched an industry wide investigation of MACE and other sprays and seized several of these products on the grounds that they were improperly labeled, and others on the grounds that they were meant only for law enforcement officials but were being diverted into consumer channels.

Professor Page is too modest to claim any major victory in his c a m p a i g n a g a i n s t t h e indiscriminate use of MACE, but the public should be grateful for his energetic concern. The depth and thoroughness of his

-approach have undeniably born fruits.

One would think that keeping tabs on MACE and teaching law at the University of Denver College of Law, 1964-68 and at GULC since then would fully occupy a man’s capacity, but Professor Page’s interests are broader yet. He spent the summer of 1963 in South America with Ralph Nader and became intimately acquainted with the turbulent situation in Northeast Brazil near the city of Recife where abject poverty and a practically medieval class structure vie for existence in the 20th century.

Professor Page returned to Recife in the summers of ’64, ’65, ’67. and ’69. In 1964 he survived an ordeal in Recife dungeon after a trumped up arrest essentially “for being an American.” He miraculously escaped injury in the Student Riots of the spring of 1968 in Paris where he travelled to follow up the stories of some Recife exiles. His published accounts of these adventures appeared in the At lant ic Monthly, the Reporter, and The University of Denver Magazine. He is now under contract with Grossman Publishers to write a book entitled “The Revolution T h a t Never Was” about Northeast Brazil.

Professor Page’s friendship with Ralph Nader began in 1955 when they were both first year law students at Harvard. They wrote for the Harvard Law Record, which is Harvard’s equivalent of the Weekly. It was Nader who encouraged Page to submit his earliest piece of free lance writing to The Nation in 1962. That magazine accepted his work which was the first critical assessment of Senator Edward Kennedy published n a t i o n a l l y . Page’s bi-line appeared most recently in September 1970, when the New York Times Sunday Magazine printed his exciting account of the act ivi t ies of Professor Banzhof of George Washington Law School.

When asked how he managed to become such a competent writer Page answered, “It must be my classical education.” He majored in Greek and Latin as a Ha rva rd uner gradua te ! A classical educat ion hardly explains the breadth of his interests and capacities, but with f i l e s on drunken Indian elephants next to the latest repor t s on MACE, we can probably expect a future product ivi ty as varied and enlightening as the past.

PAGE 4 GEORGETOWN LAW WEEKLY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1970

Destruction of a(Continued jrom page 1)

PeopleWar was started by a massacre of whites by members of

Reform in Registrar’s

186, are entirely included within the 1863 cession.In another action before the Indian Claims

Commission, Docket No. 180-A, the Nez Perce Tribe, including the Joseph Band, recovered a judgment for. $3,000,000 based on the failure of the United States to prevent trespassers from taking gold from the 1855 reservation prior to 1867. Williams, et al. (Nez Perce) v. United States, 8 Ind.Cl.Comm. 300 (1959), affd 153 C.Cls. 697 (1961).

Claims of Imprisonment

Following a series of clashes between the Joseph Band and the settlers and military, the Joseph Band was forcibly removed first to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and later to two locations in Indian Territory. After five years, the Band was returned to the Northwest and divided into two groups, one going to an Idaho Reservation, the other to a Colville Reservation. The “imprisonment” is not shown to have involved anything more than a military escort from Fort Keogh to Fort Leavenworth. The transfer from Fort Leavenworth to Indian Territory was made under the supervision of two Government agents in charge of 410 Indians. No other use of force is shown in the record.

On the other hand an attempt is made to paint a picture showing mistreatment of the Joseph Band by the United States over a long period of time. They assert that this alleged mistreatment “resulted in permanent injuries to the Band as a group,” “resulted in the ultimate destruction o f the Band as a viable political entity,” “resulted in destruction of the Band as an entity” and “that the Band suffered injuries in that it was thwarted in the advancement of its common purposes.” Nowhere in the Indian Claims Commission Act is any reference made to claims such as these. Petitioners attempt to gather all these vague claims under section 2, clause 5 of the Act, namely, the “Fair and Honorable Dealings” provision, which states: The Commission shall hear and determine the following claims against the U.S. on behalf of any Indian tribe, band, or other identifiable group of the U.S.: claims based upon fair and honorable dealings that are not recognized by any existing rule o f faw or equity. While the Commission has used this provision to justify claims far beyond any grounds based upon law and equity, at no time in its more than 20 years of history has it gone beyond claims based upon property rights. No grounds for recovery even approaching the ones asserted here have ever been considered to be valid even under the most liberal construction of the Act. Petitioners have cited several decisions in an attempt to show that the Commission and the Court of Claims have previously considered claims such as the principal claim asserted here, namely, “destruction of the Band as a viable entity,” whatever that term covers. None of the cases cited involve other than property rights. The closest any of these cases come to the case at bar is Snake or Piute Indians v. United States, 125 C.Cls. 241 (1953). In that decision the Indians were permitted to present a claim based upon failure of the United States to perform a promise made to establish the Piutes a home. This is unquestionably a claim based upon a property right, namely, a right to a home. In other words, a right to land.

Imprisonment

While it is claimed these Indians were imprisoned at Fort Leavenworth for a short period, there is no evidence that they were confined behind bars or incarcerated in the usual understanding of the term “imprisonment.” In any event, this Commission has decided the question of whether imprisonment is a tribal claim in the case of the Fort Sill Apaches v. United States, 1 Ind.Cl.Comm. 137 (1949). One of the claims in that case was based upon alleged confinement of a tribe of Indians consisting of 450 members in various forts and barracks and at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. The Commission held in that case that such imprisonment involved wrongs, if any, to individuals, over which the Commission has no jurisdiction. This decision stands uncontradicted.

While no purpose can be served by a contest with petitioners’ attorneys over the cause of the misfortunes to the Joseph Band complained of by Petitioners, we believe it would be well to call attention to certain facts not denied by petitioners’ counsel as follows:

1. The other bands of the Nez Perce Tribe which agreed to go upon the Nez Perce Reservation (an opportunity also accorded the Joseph Band) have avoided the troubles complained of and have faired well.

2 The beginning of the so-called Chief Joseph Band

that Band.Petitioners attempt to temper the consequences of this outrage by alluding to the fact that Chief Joseph was absent.

3. The Joseph Band Indians that wished to do so were given the opportunity to go to the Idaho Nez Perce Reservation.

4. Several attempts were made to satisfy the Joseph Band insofar as obtaining a satisfactory location was concerned. It is evident from the refusal of this Band to accept that these Indians were determined to be uncooperative.

5. Reports of Department of the Interior for the years 1896 and 1899 state that even at these late dates the Joseph Band was indolent and unappreciative even though they were given more help than other Indians on the Colville Reservation.

Destruction of the Joseph Band as a Viable Political, Social and

Economic Entity

This is the basis for recovery upon which petitioners seem to place their reliance for some type of recovery.. This basis is more vague and foreign than anything apparently contemplated by Congress in passing the Indian Claims Commission Act. A similar claim was recently dismissed by the Commission and the Court of Claims, in Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, et al. v. United States, 20 Ind.Cl.Comm. 131 (1968), affirmed by the Court of Claims, Appeal Nos. 1-69, 2-69, 3-69, February 20, 1970, not yet reported. The claim asserted in that case was (1) failure of the Government to provide adequate educational facilities, (2) failure to provide adequate medical facilities, and (3) the allegation that the Government “undertook to, and did, subjugate petitioner under wardship to a stagnation of self-expression*** [and] bridled petitioner into cultural impotency” (slip opinion, p.2). In reply to this claim the Court of Claims stated (slip opinion, p. 10):

While we recognize that Congress wished to make the Commission's jurisdiction as broad as possible, we must be cognizant of the fact that the jurisdictional section of the Act is a synthesis of those “*** classes of cases *** which have h eretofore received congressional consideration in the form of special jurisdictional acts. **♦ “|q Rept. No. 1466; 79th Cong., 1st Sess., (1954) p. 10. And, as has already been mentioned, this particular claim is one of first impression. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that, despite the broad range of claims intended to be included in the Act, this particular claim was not among them.On the basis of the entire record no justifiable claim has

been presented and the petition should be dismissed.

•dettex faun t6e Decut

Office

(Continued from page 1)

Association, and organization whose officers are elected by the entire student body, favored the idea of such a meeting.

There were, however, some aspects to the suggestion for a meeting on October 7th, 1970 that raised doubts whether such a meeting would be useful. None of the heads of the organizations which purportedly signed this letter have been in touch with me b e f o r e or since the publication of the letter as to the subjects which they wished to discuss, or as to how the meeting could be made fruitful. Moreover, the head of one of the organizations which purportedly signed this letter, wrote to the LAW WEEKLY of September 29 that he did not sign the letter, that his organization was not a participant in the Coalition of Students Organizations, and had no knowledge of such an o r g a n i z a t i o n . This raises questions as to just who stands behind the letter,and under the circumstances it does not appear to be productive for me to participate in such a meeting.

However, I agree with the

Student Bar Association in endorsing the continuation of our open discussion, and I invite all members of the Law Center community to participate on October 21 and 22,1970.

ADRIAN S. FISHER DEAN

1 Just How Long; Will It Stand? IM e m b e r s of Professor

Sobeloff’s Tax 1 class were treated to another example of t h e o u t s t a n d i n g construction-character of the Law School when a portion of the paneled wall in Hall VIII fell, creating a loud and distracting noise, and leaving a gaping hole in th e wall . Apparent ly condi t ioned to such event, Professor Sobeloff resumed his lecture. After class, a suggestion was made by an unidentified student that the wood be used for a door to one of the men’s rooms.

By Jerry Murphy

The registrar’s office recently conducted a study of its office forms and procedures. The study was prompted by complaints of delay and inefficiency.

Delay, Delay

Besides a seemingly endless line at registration, complaints have grown out of recurrent delays at the office counter. Critics from several quarters averr the difficulty stems from archaic office procedures. Spokesmen for the registrar’s office admit that the present method of registration is outmoded and inadequate at best, however they indicate that it will be replaced by complete registration by mail probably by the spring semester.

Delays at the office counter are attributed to staff shortages and an archaic office layout. Miss Barbara King, an office supervisor, noted that student enrollment has increased 25% this year, but the staff is slightly smaller than it was last year. She said the office cannot afford to put one full-time member of the staff at the front office counter to respond to an electronic button installed on the counter is used to light a bulb in back office.

That ButtonT h e s ma l l and of ten

ineffectual button is a major cause of complaints. Students and alumni desiring transcripts or administ rat ion records, savagely depress the button only to receive a response some ten or f i f teen minutes later. Staff members in the back office often are unable to answer the light because of this year’s increased work load or because they are detained by telephone calls. Miss King said the registrar’s office receives up to seventy phone calls a day.

Antiquated Layout

Staff shortage and phone call difficulties are compounded by an outdated office layout. The office is an over-crowded and

o v e r p a r t i t i o n e d anachronism hampering the office staff in daily task and counter service. An obvious example is the wall that separates the counter and front office from being seen by the staff.

Although staffing problems and the corrollary telephone problems remain unanswered, th e physical and spatial difficulties will be eliminated in th e new f a c i l i t y under construction. The new Law building will provide more open space in a front floor office. It will also utilize a sort of kiosk or small counter on the first floor manned by a full time staff member equipped with grade records, and sundry request forms. The kiosk will have a direct telephone line to the fourth floor offices and will hopefully eliminate long delays on simple matters.

Change Needed Now

If an additional staff member must be hired to operate the first floor counter in the new building, perhaps a new member or members might well be hired for this term and building. Besides alleviating the button difficulty, it would augment an al ready understaffed office. Certainly these needs are no less urgent in 1970 than they will be in 1971.

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1970 GEORGETOWN LAW WEEKLY PAGE 5

Law School Controversyby Paul Karney

On Tuesday, September 29, the Student Bar Association considered the question of whether or not the Law Center■ s h o u l d w i t h d r a w f r o m Georgetown University Alumni Association. The controversy over exactly what the parent organization does for the Law Center is a continuing one and has been the subject of study by various student administrations over the past decade.

Student Position Created

President Jeff Moss stated that the parent organization has recently created a position on the Alumni Committee for the purpose of considering the Law Center needs with regard to the disbursement of funds. The occasion for Moss’s remarks was the introduction to the house of delegates of a money bill to fund a students’ attendance at the Annual Alumni Convention. T h o m a s But ler who was appointed by Moss to act as a liaison between the University Alumni organization and who is to work closely with the Law Center representative on that committee requested 175 dollars for transportation and lodging e x p e n s e s . The a l u m n i convention, at which Dean Adrian Fisher was a featured participant, was held in Chicago, Illinois—the weekend of October 2, 1970.

Butler stated that a major item of concern for the Law Center Alumni Secretary is the pract ice of the University Administration of deducting any alumni’s contribution from the general allocation of University funds for the Law Center’s operat ional budget. If for

example Alumnus X contributes $100 ear-marked for the Law depar tment a corresponding amount is diverted by the contributor to another area of the University. This practice discourages alumni contributions since the prospective donor is faced with the fact that his contribution will not result in increased funds for the Law Center. Butler stated a report to the s tudent on the 3-day conference will be made in the form of an article by the delegate in the next publication of Res Ipsor Loquitur.

Examination Procedure Discussed

Other business discussed was the proposed examination referendum composed by a House of Delegates Committee consisting of Jack Mihalih, Bob Knisley and Alan Fener. The proposal will be voted on during the elect ion of first year delegates and will be a means of

acquiring student opinion on existing examination procedures. The student will have a choice of e x p r e s s i n g an o p i n i o n maintaining the present system on changing it. If changes are desired the voters will have ar opportunity to rate the four alternative proposals in order of their choice of first, second, third or fourth. The referendum which was approved as written will be published in the near future in order that the student might have an opportunity to study it before voting. At the close of the meeting Moss suggested that the delegates consider set t ing up strict guidelines for the admission of bills which would, if enacted, expend SBA funds. HLs proposal was to require that all such money bills be submitted to the delegates in committees at least one week in advance of any vote by the assembly. Further action of the proposal is expected at the next SBA meeting.

STUDENT BAR ASSOCIATION

April 17, 1970

Budget Request 1-188 for fiscal 1971

Athletic Trophies &Competitions $250.00Student Directory 700.00Picture Book 400.00•Lecture Series (Pool) 2,000.00Supplies 300.00Capital Equipment 150.00•Travel & Sustenance 4,100.00

$7,760.00+140.00

7,900.00•Note: it is contemplated that these two catagories will gener-

ally breakdown into the following programs:

1. Law day- 2,000.2. 3 speaker/mixers 2,400.3. spec, program:

eg. Earth Day 1,000.4. Spoof Night 300.5. Fees & Travel 400.

6,100.

Exam Change ProposedThe Student Bar Association

will submit a referendum on elective exam scheduling to the student body concurrent with the first year delegate elections. There is substantial faculty and administration support for some degree of change and, with clear and convincing student support, students might be arranging their own examination schedules this December.

Two-Phased Referendum

The first question on the referendum presents the general

Fire RegulationsFIRE CALL PROCEDURES

The fire alarm systems in these buildings arc “ Interior Alarms". This means that when an alarm is sounded alarm if bells ring only in that building and DO NOT alert the D.C. Fire t Department.

If you discover a fire or believe that there is a fire in the building -

1) Pull the closest fire alarm box to warn the others in the if building.

2) Call the Fire Department HO 2-1616 and give them the fj address and the location of the fire (basement, room, corridor, etc.).

3) Notify the Security Office 625-4345, 625-4344, and relay the information.

LAW BOOKS

NEW & USED

LEGAL FORMS

STUDENT SUPPLIES

Fernet w- On e .

509 E STREET, N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001

NAtionol 8-5785

question, “Should the present fixed-scheduling exam system be changed to some form of elective-scheduling system to be confined to the exam periods of December and May?” For those students who think it should be changed, the second question presents four alternatives’ progressively less restrictive:

1 ) R e t a i n in-school m o n i t o r i n g an d t ime limitations. Students would have requested and received a day, time-slot and room for each exam a day or two before the exam is to be t aken. The administration would then shuffle and deal exams to the prearranged rooms. This is done under the present system for those typing exams.

2) R e t a i n in-school m o n i t o r i n g an d t ime constraints. Students would pick up exams at the Registrar’s Office where the e x a m s w o u l d b e time-stamped. The fixed time period would be enforced by a second time-stamp, either in the class room or the Registrar’s Office when the exam was returned.

3) Retain only enforced fixed time periods. Students would pick up and return exams to the Registrar’s Office where they would be time-stamped as in #2 supra.

4) No time-st am ping. Students would pick up and return exams to the registrar’s office. Some type of honor system is implicit in each alternative listed above. Exam questions would have to be1 returned with the answers. Surely, if a senior is allowed access to clients shortly after graduation, some honor can be expected throughout his years at law school.

The selection of a less restr ict ive al ternat ive (for example, #3) would be assumed to indicate approval of the more restrictive alternatives (therefore #\ and #2) unless otherwise indicated.

A copy of the referendum ballot will be printed in a latter issue of the Law Weekly.

Hardships To Be Obviated

Under a flexible system of exam scheduling many present

hardships would be eliminated. Course scheduling would be independent of exam scheduling. Students could schedule exams early or late to fit study habits

and vacation schedules. Review would become less of an exercise in cramming and more of a legitimate participation in the learning process.

Last of the Red Hot Loversby John Esche

It’s always a joy to find a play that gets better with each viewing. Such a show is Neil Simon’s latest and best comedy. Last of the Red Hot Lovers, playing this week and next at the National.

This particular lover, one Barney Cash man, is by no means the last of his breed. A rather fat, balding restaurant owner in his late forties, Barney has been contemplating human mortality and all the experiences he has missed. “ Life has not only been extremely kind to me,” he explains, “it has gone out of its way to avoid me!”

In three desparate attempts to experience life outside the safe, rather dull confines of his twenty-three year-old marriage, Barney is a walking disaster area.

Part of his problem is logistics. Barney is searching for truth and beauty so a sordid motel room is out. The locale ■for his attempted trysts is to be his mother’s apartment with the paper thin walls, on afternoons while she is innocently rolling bandages at Mount Sinai Hospital. She’ll be home by five.

Part of his problem is p e r s o n n e l . Barney picks potential liasons the way Nixon picks Supreme Court justices; beauts.

First, there is Elaine Navazio,' a housewife “of the Polish persuasion” he picked up in his restaurant. She chainsmokes, drinks like a fish, and is as softly romantic as General Patton. She came for sex, not truth and beauty. Poor Barney is not ready for her yet.

Second comes Bobbi Michele, an aspiring if paranoid actress

who rooms with a lesbian-Nazi vocal coach and gets Barney stoned on prescription pot.

Finally, Barney latches on to Jeanette Fisher, his wife’s best friend, who positively radiates infect ious funerial gloom. Barney is ready, but she wants to talk. “You think you’re going to have a good time?” she asks,

“You’re not going to have a good time.” You know she’s right.

But if Barney isn’t having a good time, the audience is, Simon has a tendency to preach, but LRIiL is the funniest sermon you’ll ever hear thanks to the near textbook perfection of Simon’s writing. The play is t i g h t l y c o n s t r u c t e d and balanced; each situation leading inexorably to the next. They just don’t write plays like that anymore.

S a i n et -Subber , S i mon’s p e r e n n i a l p roducer , has assembled a top notch cast for this tour. If Jack Weston, of TV and movie fame, doesn’t make his initial entrance with the panic born of purity of James C o c o in the New York production, he quickly warms to the part. Under Robert Moore’s direction, Weston develops the hopelessly inept amateur seducer to a near art form in itself.

We s t o n is given able assistance by Rosemary Prin/. as Mrs. Nava/.io, by Ginger Flick as Miss Michele, and especially by his wife, Marge Redmond as Mrs. Fisher. This pair actually rivals the effectiveness of the New York production since Miss Redmond, late of sugar and spice in The Flying Nun, has instilled her character with a sharpness and bite that gives bredth and texture to the depths of their depression.

Don’t miss this show.

********************

From time to time, we shall note when items of theatrical interest appear in the other media. One such event occurs this Thursday evening at 8:30 p.m. on WETA-TV, Channel 26 in Washington. The NET Playhouse is presenting a ninety-minute special on Helen Hayes, including exerpts from her most famous performances. It promises to be a memorable evening.

PAGE 6 GEORGETOWN LAW WEEKLY

Absentee JudgeTUESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1970

1 f Obiter Dicta

By Belford Lawson

In 1950, Atty. Mary C. Barlow, then 32, the law l ibrarian to the 10-judge municipal court system and a professor of Legal Bibliography a t th e f o r m e r National University Law School, was appointed to the Municipal Bench after having defeated’ more than 375 other candidates in the competition. There was some quest ion about the competence of the appointee at that time, because she had had at least a bare minimum of in cour t trial experience. But during her term on the Bench, which was renewed right after the Democratic victory in 1960 f o r a s e c o n d 1 0 - y e a r appointment, Judge Barlow has been recognized as a highly c o m p e t e n t j ud g e whose contribution to the judicial and legal communi ty has beensubstantial and has been consis­tently inspected.

Decline and Fall

In 1964, after regular and punctual service, the judge’s appearances in court fell into a decline. Court records since 1965 show that from the beginning of that year through

February 1967, her attendance dropped from 50% down to about 15% of the total work year. In 1968 she made only a few token appearances and in 1969 she did not appear at all.

On March 28, 1970, because of service rendered after her first appointment ended and before its renewal, she became entitled to retirem ent benefits that would have been due her had she retired even one day before that date. Her second ten-year term ends in September 1971, and apparently Judge Barlow intends to continue possibly until that date or beyond it despite the* fact that she had served for 20 years, and received the award of her pension by March 28. If she receives a raise at any time after that date it will be to her advantage financially, because the pensions are computed on a 2/3 basis.

In January, the D.C. Crime Bill will take effect, and when it does it will provide for a District Commission Judicial Disability and Tenure. The Commission will have authority to retire involuntarily any judge whose physical disability “ ...interferes with the proper performance of his judicial duties..”

Chief Judge Harold Greene

who is responsible under the present municipal System for the administration of judicial matters involving retirement and tenure, and who attempted last February to persuade Judge Barlow to consider retirement, refused to discuss the matter with the Weekly. However, he did mention in a recent edition

-of the Washington Post that he “ did st rongly support the removal commission.”

Hogwash

Judge Barlow did grant an interview to the Weekly. In response to the question as to whether the recent Post Article was too harsh, too insensitive, in i t s e x p o s u r e o f t h e ' abovement ioned information, she replied that she had not read all of the articles, and was not familiar with the one to which the reporter referred, but that at any rate she was “for the First Amendment.” When asked what she would have done had she been in Chief Judge Greene’s place and been faced with a case like her own to decide, she replied that she had never served the court in an administrative role and that she didn’t know what he would do about such a case as her own.

SportsIntramurals

By Gary GearhartAs league play in the

tough G.U. intramural league enters its second week, four experienced teams and one n e w c o m e r h e a d their respective divisions with 1-0 marks, in the A league we find Barrister’s III, Cannibus Factor, and the Subpoenas with one victory apiece, with Murder Inc., BYO’s, and Has Beens sustaining defeats at th e l e a d e r ’s expenses. Meanwhile, in Hie much more rugged B league (the B s tands in this case for belligerency), Sgt. Pepper’s and F Street Warehouse top the heap, with the Gypsies and St. Jude 7 holding down the bottom.

B III Looks Rusty

Scares were abundant in the first week’s play as many pre-season favorites came close to tumbling from their pinnacles. Barrister’s HI. a potentially sound football team, exhibited the poise of a wounded water buffalo in “thundering” to a 6-0 victory over the BYO’s. B III at times

appeared as if they could only defeat themselves, and if it were not for a fine recept ion by wily Jim Connelly, the B III would never have tasted victory. It should be noted that while B JJJ did “carry the day", the slashing, bull-like play of lorn Woodley almost turned the trick for the BYO’s and he alone could carry their team to a fine season barring any injuries.

E Street Beatable

Following a forfeit by the lias Beens to the Subpoenas (the Has Beens should change t h e i r n a m e t o t h e Never-Shows), L Street Warehouse flashed signs of brilliance in defeating the (iypsies 20-0 but only signs! Watching the game films will indicate to the Warehouse their ineptness in certain areas. They must either shore-up their weaknesses or sink.

Factor Has Close Game

In a real mud bath, which evidences the fortitude - and

possible stupidity - of G.U. “ jo ck s,” Cannibus Factor knocked off a surprisingly tough Murder Inc. team. Murder, playing as if they really meant it, physically out-played their opposition. They could easily prove themselves to be the real “darkhorse” in this league. Wi th ‘ ‘Wi n k ’’ Pearson covering fourteen miles in the b a c k f i e l d , and shifty, glue-fingered Rick Miller hauling in “Wink’s” fantastic end-over-end passes, the Factor was just too much for Murder in their first time at the gate.

The Peppers Idle

Terminat ing the first week’s schedule, Sgt. Pepper’s talented crew stood idly in the rain as St. Jude 7 forfeited. Mention should also be made at this time that Lonnie and the Meltones received a first week’s bye, and although not allowed to unveil their secret weapon, “ C r a z y l e g s ’ ’ P i e r c e O’Donnell, they are ready to roll this week.

Although spectators at last week's games were sparse due to inclement weather, a tough schedule and predictions by our crack meteorologist for “golden rays” this Sunday insures capacity crowds for our second full week of action. This week’s lineup features:

9:00 Sgt. Pepper’s vs Gypsies

10:00 Obiter Dicta vs Bombers

11.00 Cannibus Factor vs BYO’s

12:00 Has Been’s vs Lonnie and the Meltones

1:00 E Street ware- vs St Jude 7 house

Byes: Barristers III, Sub-poenas, and Murder Inc.

Law StudentsThe DeRand Investment Corporation is

new with new ideas. We are looking for law

students to become associated with us as

registered representatives and account

executives. For an on campus appointment

to discuss our Firm and your future, call

William Conway at 543-8800.

DE RANDINVESTMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA

% %

Meeting Cancelled-The meeting which was to be held October 7th in John Carroll at

11:30 has been cancelled because of lack of response.

Loans Available-The Law Center has receved a limited amount of funds available

for distribution as loans through the National Defense Education Act. Any student seeking an NDEA loan should file a completed NDEA Loan Application with the Registrar’s Office on or before October 12,1970. Any student who has already filed such an application should confirm that fact with the Registrar’s Office.

Law JournalsThe Georgetown Law Journal, Volume 58, Issue 4-5, will be

available in the Journal offices for any second, third and fourth year students who have not yet received their copy.

Delta Theta Phi

-Delta Theta Phi, as part of its professional service to the school, will present the CBS news film, “Hugo Black and the Bill of Rights” on Tuesday, October 13. Dean Adrian Fisher will introduce the film. The film will be shown at noon for the Day Division and after classes for the Evening Division.

The Wanderer(Continued from page 2)

winter, in death, in maturity. Whether another year comes is not the concern of the film any more than whether another life comes for its characters. When the film ends it is complete- to continue would be to repeat.

Technically, the film is slick. It is slick in a way The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari would be if released tomorrow. It is slick as would be the drawings of William Blake if done today. It is as slick as was Elvira Madigan. Like Elvira Madigan, but even more so. The Wanderer uses the cinema camera as much like a s t i l l camera, for actual movement. Images are more prominently developed than sequences of motion. Colors exist alone, at times completely erasing forms. Lighting becomes a creative tool, blind to the requirements of night and day. More artificial lighting (made to look as such) is made use of in daylight scenes than in evening scenes. Lenses which distort, combine, duplicate, enlarge, are used with surprising frequency. Music on the order of Madigan matches moods almost too well - loud and deep for death, confident for maturity, gentle and unsure for youth and fear. Unlike Madigan the music is

original. No matter. It is as effective.

I have said The Wanderer is slick. It is. I have said it is technical ly complete and modern. It is. The kind of expression one may run into upon entering a movie theater is at best up for grabs. Possibly a movie will be on the screen; poss ibly a visual social commentary will be on the screen or a commercial for hard rock or debauchery. If one is living right, smiles at people in the street, and stays away from carbonated beverages, possibly he or she will be rewarded. Just possibly an opportunity might arise to witness and take part in a purely emotive experience in a theater; to experience a direct expressive whole with no worries about “what it all means.”

The Wanderer is not a movie like Woodstock or Midnight Cowboy or Catch 22. It does not use gimicks; it embraces them. It does not use the motion picture camera, it helps define its potentialities. The Wanderer is not a movie at all. It is a period of time by which the wise individual will allow himself to be taken, to be lifted up, swirled around, and then released. If after this you wish to forget the experience, its value will be not at all diminished. Nor will yours.

TfJelcMHe Students

P LEA D Y O U R LU N CH

at the

COURTHOUSECARRYOUT

402 5th Street, N.W.

Sandwiches ready made or specially prepared for your taste.

Coffee Donuts Cake Drinks -Savor our Specialty,

IT A LIA N M IN I-SU B S

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6 ,1970

MusicGEORGETOWN LAW WEEKLY

Hawkins and the BandPAGE 7

Ii!

by Steve Duvoric

Ronnie Hawkins was one of the big of the latter early rockers (confusing, eh?), an Ozarks boy, 250 lbs. of sweaty redneck, solid country. He couldn’t make it big here so he went with his fellow Arkansan Levon Helm up to Canada and formed Ronnie Hawkins and the Hawks with some Canadian musicians. He had moderate success here but was really a smash in Canada and the U.K. The Hawks of course are now the Band, renowned hither and yon as nonpareil studioites and the bunch that backed Dylan. Best of...is the cream of the early stuff, 100% pure rock n’ roll (as versus “rock”), full of countryness ala Elvis and Jerry Lee. There’s a gaggle of teen nonsence love songs addressed to girls (“Clara,”

“ Baby Jean,” Dion’s “ Ruby Baby,” and “Odessa” - it's really a kick listening to the Band chant “Oh-dessah Bay-bee!”); two pure sentiment country ballads sans Band (“Death of Floyd Collins,” “Ballad of Caryl Chessman” - that dates it); a couple of Bo Diddley numbers (“Bo Diddley,” “Who Do You Love.”); and a chilling, very untenny number (“Mary Lou.”) about a woman that milks all her men dry. Throughout, one is constantly impressed at just how good the Band is as a backing group-full, layered sounds, fills, a n d G a r t h H u d s o n on everything, playing organ like an orchestra,tenor like a 50year old black jazz bluesman, etc. - a band all to himself. The pure stuff. This is a reissue since the Hawks are called the Band here and it’s in stereo. Most of this

stuff is about 10 years old.The Band is, of course, in­

famous now (I guess you have it made when you’re on the cover of Time), but Stage Fright as an LP compared to Big Pink and The Band is a letdown. As heard on Best of..., they were a superb, polished band even then, so obviously refinement of their style is not their direction. But Stage Fright sounds like they are going back over the same ground to see if they missed anything. Tho’ it’s hard to expect anyone to sustain the brilliance of stuff like “ The Weight,” “King Harvest," and the “Dixie” cut, they should be viewed by the standards they themselves have set. On Stage Fright, there are three strong cuts, “Strawberry Wine” (a solid potential hit single, sounding very much like a tribute to old boss Hawkins),

The Admissions(Continued from page 1)

the a pplicat ions/acceptance period to which prediction methods are applied. Examples of these indicators are: number of raw applicants; LSAT scores; rate of acceptances ($50 deposit); similar telephoned data from the competing schools.

Data are compiled or are compilable on any and all combinations of indicators/pre- dictors. A broad picture of the last five years at GULC are given below. Inferences for the most part independent of the more detailed data can be drawn.

As is observed in 1965-67, the number of students registering was being controlled successfully at about 410-420. Then in 1968 something went wrong; only 31% of those accepted attended. This was probably due to the roll-back of draft deferments, but it i l lust rates how an unaccounted for event can upset the predictions. Compensation was made in 1969 by increasing acceptances and the response was strong.

This brings us to our current year. It would appear at first blush that the Law School was attempting to keep the number of registrants in the same area for 1970 as it was for 1969 by holding acceptances constant. But as one considers the circumstances, it appears there was more involved.

Conscious Intent?

Surely it must have been recognized by the administrators at GULC that with almost 1000’ more raw applicants than in 1969, i n d i c a t i n g f i e r ce competition, there would be an increase in the number of regist rants given the same number accepted as in 1969. This was one of the factors cited by the other contacted schools that prompted them to tighten then- acceptances accordingly.

This appears to bring out a conscious intention on behalf of GULC to i n c r e a s e t h e enrollment, perhaps with an eye on fully utilizing the new building next year. But still the increase was not anticipated to be as large as developed because at this point there were still only three student sections.

Along about the latter part of

June “came the dawn.” Offers to attend were still outstanding and acceptances by students were well over estimated. Only by drastic cut-back measures c o u l d a t a r g e t goal of approximately 500 registrants be met. The resultant concern over this situation brought about meetings in late July which precipitated the decision to go to four student sections.

It can only be conjectured that the decision to hire additional faculty and break out a fourth student section was of such an “11th hour” nature that

there must have been reluctance to do this in some areas of the administration. Where exactly, is above conjecture?

It w o u l d appear that s o m e t i m e b e t w e e n February/March and midsummer the foundation was laid for a slightly larger than usual number of applicants to exercise their options to attend GULC.

The question is: why? If Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania and Virginia were scrambling to cut. back their acceptances due to what appeared, as early as March to be a sharp decline in withdrawal rates, what was GULC doing?

Usually a student will apply to three law schools. Obviously, as registration draws near, he choses one which he will attend. Now if by May he doesn’t have Harvard to chose from, or Yale or Penn or similar school’s in GULC’s competitive roster since they’ve already “scrubbed” their waiting lists, Georgetown should be wary thaat any acceptances outstanding or accepted will probably register.

It can be claimed that “hindsight is always 20/20.” But some indicators were shooting up red flags rather early in the y e a r t o be c o n s i d e r e d “hindsight.”

The other schools were quick to comment that it was not an easy task to “hold the line,” but hold it they did. The following is a partial list of data obtained from contacted schools. The number of raw applicants for each school was, as at GULC,

I. N o. A pplicants 5 1 0 0I I . N o . Acceptances 820I I I . N o . Registered 5 3 0 (6 0 0 )

about 750 to 1000 over last y e a r ’s f i g u r e

If from what has been thus far presented one is ready to c o nclude ̂t hat admissions difficulties are unique with GULC, don’t be too hasty. Last year Harvard got taken by surprise and Yale was practically blitzed. And this year Rutgers’ first year class finally stopped growing at roughly twice its last year’s size!

Before concluding this ret rospect ion, there is one additonal consideration which catches the eye of many observers. Was, in fact, the situation one of fighting to limit the class size right down to registration time?

Perhaps, but there are a number of s tudent s who received acceptance notices in August. Could it be that in the meet ing of late J\ily the Admissions Committee was directed to make sure a fourth student section got filled? This action would, and did, by very rough calculation, embellish the books of “Jolly Treasurer” to the tune of $200,000 this year. To a school such as GULC with lean endowments and a new building to finance, necessity may well be responsible for some otherwise unexplainable events.

Short of wiretapping, many of the circumstances alluded to in this article are beyond certainty. Some things do appear true, however.

T he l a r ge number of applicants this year was not unique to GULC. Reasons for this phenomenon are not difficult to come by: post-war baby boom, stabilized draft situation, unemployment level. You name it, t h e y ’re all plausible.

As for Georgetown, it appears simply that, while not wholly unintentional, statistical predictions failed this year. The result ing situation was one which could have been ignored. Instead, the Law Center hired addi t ional p rofessors and expanded classes to meet the needs.

It should also be clear that there is little motivation for a detailed investigation of this issue. For if it was discovered t h a t 100 s- tudents were inadvertently registered, how many of the 100 would feel moved to withdraw?

3 0 0 0 2 6 6 0 2 9 0 03 2 0 N A 5 901 6 4 (2 4 0 ) 2 8 8 (2 2 0 ) 2 9 7 (N A

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1 97 0I. No. Applications 1646 1966 2 09 7 1975 2 67 3 3 430II . N o. Acceptances* 853 957 980 1150 1353 1356

(51% ) (49% ) (47% ) (59% ) (50% ) (39% )I I I . No Registered * * 426 407 416 357 485 621

(1 net. A M & PM) •Percent is of Row 1.

(50% ) (42% ) (42% ) (31% ) * ‘ Percent is o ff Row II.

(36% ) (46% )

Harvard Vale U . O f Pa. U . o f V a .

‘The Shape I’m In,” and “W.S. Walcott Medicine Show” (which nevertheless sounds like a conglomerate of their other Americana bits like “Dixie,” “ Rag Mama Rag,” “Jemima,” etc.). All are good hard rocking stuff , full of evil-sounding croaking rhythms, steely guitar, and Garth-baby doing his thing. “Daniel and th^ Sacred Harp” is a moderately interest ing Biblical-style parable on greed, but the rest ranges from sluggish lullaby (“All La Glory”) tQ retreads. For any other group, a solid effort, but for the Band, of which is expected much more, a let -down, heard once and emanently forgettable. This LP is probably indispensible to Band freaks (I’m not one), but for others, spend your money on their first two LPs.

M e a n w h i l e , our hero, knocking around the rock version of the“chittlin circuit” for a decade, has learned and forgotten more about the rock’n’ roll thing than most ever experience. Ronnie Hawkins was released last fall and it’s mostly country: ballads with jobs of sentiment, corn, strings, and sweet-voiced choruses. Of course this stuff is all the rage now and he does it well (a couple of Dylan numbers, two Gordon Lightfoots, and a couple of traditional types of country workouts), but then ol’ Ron was always just a simple country boy.

What’s really of interest to the rock ’n’ roll nut are the four hard cuts. Hawkins has always had a knack for getting good back-up and the bunch of these

four cuts is the equal, or better, of his Hawks: The Area Code 615 boys plus Duane Allman on guitar (it doesn’t say on the LP, but it’s slide guitar), and King Biscuit Boy (name copped from S o n n y Boy W i l l i a m s o n probably) on hapr. Allman is one of the real heavy weights on his axe, and on “Matchboc” and “Down In the Alley.” “Skydog” Allman is positively incredible. Readl down and dirty, rough bal l ing guitar, yowling and sl iding all over the place, obscent . St r ipper guitar. Buiscuit Boy l\ps some incredible chops too, his harp sounding like a six chorus in parts. Hawkin’s v o i c e has mel lowed and deepened and he’s gotten ever so much better. “Down In The Alley,” the Clovers’ classic, is the best example - he sounds just like some 50 year old man lusting after some 14 year old bit of fluff. Also, there’s “40 Days,” the Chuck Berry opus on love ‘n’ law, and “Who Do You Love,” which is less ominous than the first Band-backed version, but funkier, and more... together. If you’re wealthy enough to buy an LP for 4 cuts, this one is a must. You might even like the country stuff (It’s just not my bag, that’s all). The Best of...LP is also good, tho it’s main appeal will be to revivalists, Band freaks, and history of rock ‘n’ roll nuts. As far as the Band is concerned, Stage Fright seems to indicate that they may be a great back-up band, but they do not have the imagination or central image to sustain as a major musical force all by themselves. Time will tell for certain.

Action LineBy James DeLancey

Jo Gramling, Editor-in-Chief of the Law Center Publications, and Jeff Moss, President of the SBA, have reached an agreement whereby they will set up an action line to assist students with problems which they may encounter at GULC.

is a worthwhile activity.Any problems which students

have encountered should be submitted in writing to the Law Weekl y’s mai lbox in the Registrar’s office. The person should indicate what efforts he has made to solve his own problem; or where he met with par t icular resistance. Some

SBA President Moss and Law Center Publications Editor Jo Gram- ling work out “Action Line" details.

The Law Weekly will be the clearing board for the receipt of these problems. Jeff Moss says this is not an attempt to become an arm of the Administration and part of the bureaucracy, but rather a service to those students who have become frustrated in their inability to find solutions to their individual problems.

Dean Adrian Fisher indicated to J e f f Moss t h a t the Administration will cooperate with this action line service; and that he, personally, feels that it

problems will be published. Jeff Moss feels that “we must bring the Administrat ion to the P u b l i c ’s e y e , for of ten publication of a situation will aid in solving a problem.” However , names and the problems will be withheld from publication if the person so requests.

If any student has suggestions as to the operation or the name of this action line service, leave them in the Law Weekly’s mail box.

PAGE 8 GEORGETOWN LAW WEEKLY TUESDAY, OCTOBER 6,1970

‘Oct. 3: A Sunny SaBy John P. Fadden

Rev. Carl Mclntire’s “Victory in Vietnam” rally got off to a bang-or rather a crack as the “hippie” problem was being solved by several “hard hats.” At the rally it seemed that a peace symbol or long hair (or better, both) were tantamount to

wearing a target; the results were just about the same. But wasn’t this to be expected?

The tone of Saturday’s activities was set the night before when several hundred young people converged on Wisconsin Ave. in Georgetown. As the crowd walked along the

sidewalks, sometimes four and five deep, the look in passing faces was one of anticipation. Everyone wondered, not if something was going to happen, but when and where.

Along the way young people with brooms could be seen sweeping broken bottles from the middle of the street. People leaned from second story windows, some stood on steps to get a bet t er view. The happening, the spark which would ignite the night and would end ultimately in 340 arrests, came surprisingly soon. From one of the side streets a car was pushed to the center of Wisconsin Ave. to block traffic. Almost immediately several policemen rushed up the street and pushed the car out of the intersection. Moments later, as part of the crowd made its way toward Pennsylvania Ave., they were met by helmeted members of the CDU (Civil Disturbance Unit). Their night sticks shoulder high and arms o u t s t r e t c h e d , the pat rol proceeded to empty the street, forcing everyone on to the several side streets. A few police cruisers and an occasional motorcycle patrolman were the only traffic on a normally crowded Wisconsin Ave. Groups of people stood about twenty yards away from the cordon. The usual insults were hurled at the police, and occasionally something more tangible.

On several occasions a CDU force, cruising in the area, would move along the side streets toward Wisconsin Ave. forcing the crowd in between them. Gradually, the crowd having been split several times, began to leave the area. By 2 A.M. the streets were relatively quiet once again. But this was not to last for long.

Barely ten hours later, at noon on Saturday, the marchers, many clad in “ v i c t o r y” sweatshirts and carrying bibles and American flags, began their march down Pennsylvania Avenue with Rev. Carl Mclntire at their head. A V-I-C-T-O-R-Y chant prompted by cheerleaders and strains of “My Country ’tis of Thee” provided background. On the sidewalk a group of brown-shirted American Nazi Party members, struggling to keep from being overturned as the wind played with their banners, kept pace. Two lines of police buffeted the marchers from the not-so-sympathetic spectators on the sidewalk. At this point the clashes between the two groups were verbal. This was not to be the case at the rally itself.

Arriving at the Washington monument, all were greeted with music which would have been more appropriate at a revival meeting than at a political rally. One of the paraders pointed out that there was a band of “hippies” intent on breaking up the rally. Almost immediately a group of “hard hats” appeared. It wasn’t difficult to distinguish

StudentBartender

Service“A d d a

professional touch to your parties”

783-39125 pm -11 pm Weekdays

this group-they carried the sticks. In a matter of seconds bodies went careening through the air. The dull thuds of well-placed punches and kicks were easily heard. Three “hippies” were led to waiting buses which would transport them to jail. This “hard hat” attack-“hippie” arrest pattern was maintained consistently throughout the afternoon.

Rev. Mclntire began the program by thanking those responsible for solving the “hippie” problem. He went on to observe, “this (rally) is better than any (football) game in America today.” One thing can not be denied-there certainly was more physical contact.

Rep. John Rarick, the keynote speaker, began by saying that years ago when he was a farm boy in Louisiana, he learned that “the only thing found in the middle of the road is a big yeller line and dead skunks.” Just one of the many profound thoughts which came from the speakers’ platform that sunny Saturday afternoon. The speeches, as can be said of their ant i -war counterpart, were boringly repetitious. As the afternoon wore on, religion and patriotism (or super-patriotism, as you will) became inextricably entangled with politics.

Throughout the afternoon the two groups of pro and anti-war demonstrators, like highly combustible materials,

would explode suddenly and violent ly on contact. The fighting was sporadic for the most part until almost the end of the program. A group of several hundred young people moved from where they were lying in the grass to the right side of the hill at the base of the monument. Several waved Viet Cong flags. Incensed, about twenty “hard hats” charged from the periphery of the main body of spectators and the most violent confrontation of the afternoon took place. Platoon after platoon of police marched up the hill to restore order. The encounter ended quickly, but not before several were arrested; over fifty were taken into custody in the course of the afternoon.

Standing on the hill that Saturday afternoon, one could not help being saddened and a bit distressed at the irony of the situation unfolding below. A Brazilian delegate urged those gathered there to fight for his “children’s blood,” while some other “children’s blood” was being shed within his view. Several days ago, Rev. Mclntire took time at a press conference to explain the purpose of the rally. He expected, he said, about 500,000 “hawks, to take ou t after the doves.” His message was clear. Though the number of participants was not accurately predicted, the result was.

We've got goodies tor vour head and bodv and pad all that neat stutl to make vour W ashington

Thing together. Things like ineense, posters, paper Tiffanv shades, stationerv, mugs, wild

neckties, cool earrings and all that ja/ /. W e do it dail\ from I 1:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Sundays

from I 2:00 noon to 5:00 p.m.

Present this ad for a free t>ift zihe/t \ou stop tn.

TEEE Z J 3 5 Zt S 3 5251

MS P E W S ) 'Ll 'AX IA A PE S. E • S44-.S400

tg&CANTOL BILL