Interview with Price Daniel, October 18th, 1976

BIRDWHISTELL: The following is an unrehearsed interview with Judge Price Daniel for the Earle C. Clements Oral History Project of the University of Kentucky Library. The interview was conducted by Terry Birdwhistell in Judge Daniel's office in the Texas Supreme Court Building, Austin, Texas, October 18, 1976 at 4:45p.m. I thought I'd begin by finding out the first time you ever met Senator Clements, if you can recall that, and generally what your first impressions were of him.

DANIEL: Well, yes, I met Senator Clements first when I was elected in 1953 and went to Washington to get ready to assume my seat and be sworn in, and of course he was a 00:01:00great friend of then Senator Lyndon B. Johnson's, and Senator Johnson introduced me to him. That's when I met him, in Senator Johnson's office. For a little while before I was assigned an office of my own, I had to set up shop in Senator Johnson's office. And, if I remember right, it was there I first met Senator Clements.

BIRDWHISTELL: Did you attend the 1952 Democratic Convention in Chicago?

DANIEL: No, I didn't.

BIRDWHISTELL: I was curious, because Senator Clements was supporting Alben Barkley, and I was wondering if he approached you about this.

DANIEL: No, I didn't. I was running for the Senate in '52 and didn't take time off to attend the convention.

BIRDWHISTELL: In 1952, Senator Clements was serving as chairman of the Senate Campaign Committee, and I was wondering if he worked with you 00:02:00any during your campaign towards your election here in Texas.

DANIEL: No, as you know, in Texas back in those days, when you got the Democratic nomination that was about it. But '52 happened to be a year that I got both the Democratic and Republican nominations. So we didn't need any help. I'm sure he concentrated on other states. All Democratic nominees in Texas--that was the year that Eisenhower was running for President. And all the Democratic nominees were also nominated by their Republican Convention, hoping that by having no opponents on the state level that it would mean the Democrats would go for 00:03:00Eisenhower. In fact, the Democratic Convention passed a resolution that year asking all Texas Democrats to vote for Eisenhower, so it was a very unusual year in Texas.

BIRDWHISTELL: Well, some have commented that while other Democrats, like here in Texas, shot away from Stevenson in '52, that Clements campaigned for him vigorously around the country. I was wondering if you had any insight into whether this was party loyalty on his part, or did he back Stevenson's political philosophy as it was at that time?

DANIEL: I wouldn't have too much insight there, but I frankly would imagine it was largely party loyalty. He was a hard worker for the party always, and knowing him after that, I would just 00:04:00have a little bit of a feeling that he was supporting the Democratic Party nominee more than the man, Stevenson; but that's just a guess on my part.

BIRDWHISTELL: Of course, Senator Clements became very close to Lyndon Johnson in the Senate. I wanted to ask you how you would describe their relationship and why they did become so close. I guess, along those lines, did you feel that their personalities were very similar, or did their differences complement one another?

DANIEL: No, I think they were just very close friends to begin with, and when I, in '53, when I went there, the Democrats were in the minority in the Senate. Lyndon Johnson was elected 00:05:00Minority Leader, Senator Clements Minority Whip, if I'm remembering right--

BIRDWHISTELL: Yes, that's correct.

DANIEL: --and they were very close personal friends, and I felt that their philosophy of government and their ideas were pretty much the same on most legislation.

BIRDWHISTELL: Did you ever know of them disagreeing openly on a subject--you know, to any great extent?

DANIEL: I cannot remember an occasion on which they did. I'm sure that it must have happened, because even I differed with Senator Johnson once in a while, and I'm sure that they must have 00:06:00differed on some matters, but nothing stands out in my mind that I recall of any public disagreement on anything.

BIRDWHISTELL: It's interesting about the relationship, I think, because both men became powerful men in the Senate and were very ambitious men, and it's curious, I was wondering if these qualities ever caused conflict between them.

DANIEL: I never say that at all. I never did observe any conflict or jealousy between those two men.

BIRDWHISTELL: And then when Senator Clements went to the Senate, he rose to power very quickly within the Democratic Party in the Senate, getting on the Democratic Policy Committee. Do you think this was largely a result of his friendship with Senator Johnson, the fact that he was able to?

DANIEL: Well, with Senator Johnson and with the majority of the other Democratic Senators. He had many, many friends in the Senate who had many--many Senators had a high regard for him, including some of the real leaders, like Dick Russell of Georgia, Senator Harry Byrd, Senior, Walter George--he was a great friend of Senator Clements--and I just felt that Senator Clements had his own following in the Senate, and it was, of course, somewhat the following that Lyndon Johnson had. They made 00:08:00a good team.

BIRDWHISTELL: At least one historian has attributed his quick rise to Clements's ability to get along with both the Liberals and the Conservatives in the Democratic Party. Did you see that in him?

DANIEL: Yes, I think he was able to do that about as well as anybody in the Senate.

BIRDWHISTELL: How was he able to do that?

DANIEL: Well, just like Johnson. They were able to get along--Lyndon Johnson was able to get along pretty well with Conservatives and Liberals. Senator Clements probably got along with some of the Liberals better than Senator Johnson did, to start with, but they just had ways of getting close to fellow Senators, and all of us had a high 00:09:00regard for Senator Clements. He is such a friendly man that it was not any surprise to me to find him up on the second highest spot within the Party there in the Senate.

BIRDWHISTELL: One of the issues I think that was important to you when you went to the Senate was the issue of the Tidelands oil--

DANIEL: Yes, yes, I wish you would just refer to it as Tidelands; most historians and writers have referred to it as Tidelands oil, but there was of course a lot more at stake than oil. It was about four million acres of land from the low tide on the beaches, out, which included a lot more than just 00:10:00oil. But that's the fact that I was interested in, the so-called Tidelands fight.

BIRDWHISTELL: You're right in saying that most people have written it as Tidelands oil, every place I've seen it, I think. Well, if I'm correct, I think both Clements and Johnson supported you on this issue at the time.

DANIEL: Yes, I was thinking about that this morning. Johnson did, of course, and I think Senator Clements did, too. You'll have to check for sure.

BIRDWHISTELL: I'm pretty sure he did. Along that vein, I was wondering if this was a help to the Democratic leadership in the Senate then, of giving these Southern Democrats--Texas, Louisiana, that type of thing-- ----------(??); was this a big political issue within the Senate at the time?

DANIEL: Yes, it was a tremendous political issue in the Senate and in the country, but the Senate had twice previously passed a 00:11:00bill giving the states, all the states, the title to lands beneath navigable waters within their boundaries, seaward and inland, because that's the way the Supreme Court had previously written the law. For many, many years, about fifty decisions to that effect generally, and so a big majority of the Senate had always voted for the states on this so-called Tidelands question. Inland states, Great Lakes states have big bodies of navigable waters, inland states have a lot of land under their rivers, arid they all have possibilities of different minerals being discovered or different rights being exercised. They wanted title to these lands, and the inland states figured that if this theory of ownership that the Supreme Court had 00:12:00announced was not over?turned, that pretty soon, you know, they would have title to their submerged lands challenged-?first the Great Lakes; then, as you probably know, there are some people who would have liked to see the Federal Government own all lands under navigable waters. They now have paramount rights over the waters, navigable waters, which is okay, but as far as owning it, what's under the soil there, well, the states had always been thought to own that. I'm sure that a majority of the Senators--I think there were 54 signed the bill that we introduced that year. Previously, though, a majority of the Senators had voted for this bill twice, maybe three times. Twice it had been vetoed. 00:13:00I believe, though, the Senate passed the bill a third time, and that year it didn't get to the House. So, that was an issue on which the lines were pretty well drawn. That was before I got to the Senate.

BIRDWHISTELL: Of course, another issue that came up shortly after you went to the Senate, and I'm sure you've been asked about before, are the attacks of Joe McCarthy on the--concerning Communists in the government. How would you evaluate Clements's position on the McCarthy issue at the time? Did you see him in the camp of people who were sort of sitting back and not saying anything about it, or was he advocating that the Democrats should do something?

DANIEL: Well, now, I'm speaking to you strictly from memory. I really am not positive about this, but from the best of my 00:14:00recollection, I think that Senator Clements was for stopping Joe McCarthy, at least from what he was doing to his fellow Senators, and was for the resolution which finally passed. He probably was for even a stronger resolution than finally passed. But that's the way my memory serves me.

BIRDWHISTELL: As a member of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee in the Senate, did you ever work with Clements in regard to tobacco legislation that was coming through, or exports on coal, interests that were particularly important to Kentucky? I know that's getting a little specific.

DANIEL: Not that I remember. Not that I remember. Was he 00:15:00on [the] Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee? I don't remember any specific legislation that he had before the committee when I was there.

BIRDWHISTELL: Some said at the time and have since said that Johnson and Clements were not effective critics of the Eisenhower administration. In your opinion, at the time and since, were they effective critics of the Eisenhower administration?

DANIEL: No, they would criticize when they thought the President was wrong, but, as you know, they felt that they should put the country ahead of the Party and should cooperate with the President on everything; that they thought he was right on, help him with his 00:16:00program rather than just be critics just for the sake of criticism and for the sake of making the President look bad or the Republican Party look bad. I do not think that Eisenhower could have gotten any of his programs through at all without the--Senator Johnson and [Speaker of the House] Sam Rayburn and Senator Clements and some other leaders in the--on the Democratic side, because too many Republicans voted against some of the Eisenhower programs. No, I really think those years were probably--the country was put first in the Congress, as much as I've ever heard about or read about.

BIRDWHISTELL: So did you support them in this approach to--

DANIEL: Yes, I did, in fact, I had supported Eisenhower. I 00:17:00had supported Eisenhower for President because of the fact that I was Attorney General of Texas and all involved in trying to get these--title to these lands restored to us that the Supreme Court had taken away from us--in our case, by just a one-vote decision. And Truman--Stevenson said that he would veto the bill as Truman had twice done if it was passed again. When he said that, well, I decided that I was not going to support him, and Eisenhower said he would sign the bill restoring these lands to the states, so I supported Eisenhower, and I followed Johnson and Clements in their support of most of his programs, not all of them. I wouldn't doubt but 00:18:00what Johnson had a better record of supporting Eisenhower programs than I did, but I'm not sure about that. The farm program, I know, was one especially where we differed with President Eisenhower. But I think there Senator Clements and Senator Johnson differed with him also; the majority of the Democrats did.

BIRDWHISTELL: I guess Secretary of Agriculture Benson him. Of course, another issue you were involved with here in Texas as Attorney General was the integration of schools, and this was an issue in the early fifties when you were in the Senate. Do you recall any specifics about Senator Clements' stand toward civil rights at that time? Did you and he ever discuss this, agree or disagree on what should be 00:19:00done and how it should be done in terms of civil rights legislation?

DANIEL: No, I don't remember us ever discussing that in particular. That was a subject on which every Senator had to pretty well go with what he thought his state, the people of his state, how they felt about the matter. I had handled one of the early segregation cases, Marion Sweat case when I was Attorney General and had been on the Supreme Court in that case where it was first held in graduate levels, that if you didn't have--if you had segregation that it was not--you couldn't have equal graduate schools; Law School was the one involved. The court didn't strike down segregation in general 00:20:00in as many ways he was asking to do, and as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People asked him to do, asked the Court to do. But they did strike it down on the graduate school level, and it was several years there before the Brown decision [Brown v. Board of Education] struck it down, the theory of separate but equal doctrine. I don't remember Senator Clements being--his position on that subject. Let me ask you a question. From what you have learned so far, did he attend the Southern Conference that was 00:21:00held in Dick Russell's office? Do you remember that?

BIRDWHISTELL: I haven't--I'm not aware of that.

DANIEL: It's something you might ask, somewhere down the line. Senator Johnson did not, and I doubt that Senator Clements did, because Senator Johnson was from what you might call a Southern state, and no one asked him to attend because they didn't want to embarrass him as Leader, so he did not attend the conferences. But these conferences were of Southern state senators on this issue which were held once in a while. I'm sorry, I don't remember whether Senator Clements attended, but I doubt that he did, because I don't identify him with the other Southerners on this issue.

BIRDWHISTELL: I would be surprised because of his stand1n Kentucky during 00:22:00his term as governor. In terms of the Day Law, and that type of thing, but that's something I think could be pursued a little further.

DANIEL: I think you'll find that he did not--that's one time that he did not get involved with [his] fellow Southern Senators.

BIRDWHISTELL: I wanted to ask you also about Clements's role in Johnson's bid for re election here in Texas in 1954. Were you aware of any major role he played in terms of visiting the state or campaigning, how actively he worked in that?

DANIEL: In '54?

BIRDWHISTELL: Mmhmm.

DANIEL: No, I'm not. I'm not aware of--anything in that connection. I sort of thought Johnson--Johnson didn't come up in '54, did he?

BIRDWHISTELL: I could be mistaken on that. Let's see. But then he was running again in 1960, so that would have--that would be right, I think.

DANIEL: Yeah, that would be about right. Johnson's opponent, do you remember?

BIRDWHISTELL: No, I don't recall that right now.

DANIEL: I don't think he had much of an opponent.

BIRDWHISTELL: Mmhmm. I guess another question that is important was how effective Clements was in his position as Majority Whip, from your point of view.

DANIEL: Was he Minority Whip first and then Majority? He was very effective, just absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely a strong leader.

BIRDWHISTELL: What was his style as Majority Whip in terms of 00:24:00influencing Senators to his position, working with them?

DANIEL: Well, he would just touch base. Well, he had a clerk who would go around and check Senators as to how they felt on matters that the leadership was particularly interested in, and then Senator Johnson--if he found some out of line, would try to persuade 'em to come into line with what the leadership thought should be the position. There were always Senators that Senator Clements could talk to better than Senator Johnson. He would take his list, and each man knew how to approach the Senator in question.

BIRDWHISTELL: I guess the question that has to be asked, too, is, in his position as Majority Whip, did you ever feel that 00:25:00he used heavy-handed tactics or acted as Johnson's hatchet man? You know, when you think of that position and the things that have to be done, those words sometimes come up in describing it. Do those fit his actions at any time?

DANIEL: No. I'll tell you this, Mr. Clements has a heavy hand-shake [chuckle], and you knew it when you were approached by him from the beginning that he was firm in his handshake and in his thoughts and--but I never felt that he put any amount of undue pressure on anybody. He might come along and kid a little bit. If you were out of line with me, it would be 00:26:00more of a kidding about being--get in line with your colleague, or something like that. No heavy pressure, and neither did Johnson, as far as I was concerned. That's it, you know, you'll hear about people who have a heavy hand. Johnson had a heavy hand at times, but both he and Clements knew where to use the heavy hand and where to use the light hand, and not--they knew that you could appeal to reason with some better than try to over-persuade anybody by using a heavy hand on them.

BIRDWHISTELL: Both in 1955 and 1956, Clements served as Acting Majority Leader during illnesses of Lyndon Johnson. Did you feel that Clements was 00:27:00effective in taking over these responsibilities as Acting Leader?

DANIEL: Yes, I do.

BIRDWHISTELL: How did his style compare to Johnson's in the actual leadership role? Was there a difference?

DANIEL: Not too much. They of course had their own style, but I think that there was not too much difference. Both were very effective with their colleagues. I'm sure your studies have shown that Democrats voted together during those years of Johnson-Clements leadership about as much as any period in modern Senate history. So many times they were 00:28:00able to get the Southern conservative and the liberal Democrats to go together on issues. Just surprising the number of times. But they would try to pick issues that they thought were important on which they might be able to get the Democrats together. I think a lot of that is due to the issues that--due to the fact that those two men could read the members of the Senate and especially on the Democratic side, pretty well, and they would not pick an issue on which they knew already that there was going to be a big division to try to make that an issue on which the party leadership would go to town.

BIRDWHISTELL: That would go along well with the nickname that Senator 00:29:00Clements picked up, "Cautious Clem," not wanting to move before he knew he had the forces. [Does that] describe what you're--

DANIEL: Well, to some extent that would be true.

BIRDWHISTELL: Did you feel that at the time that Clements was competent, that he could handle the responsibilities? Did he ever--

DANIEL: Oh, yes. Definitely.

BIRDWHISTELL: Okay. In terms of Clements' political philosophy, from your vantage point, if you had to place a label on his political philosophy, what would it be?

DANIEL: Oh, I'm not much of one to label people. I think we did too much of that in days gone by and maybe too much of it now. I never thought of him in 00:30:00terms of a label. You're talking about the conservative-liberal--

BIRDWHISTELL: Middle of the road, that type [of thing].

DANIEL: Middle of the road, that kind of label.

BIRDWHISTELL: If you had to, you know, place him in a category--

DANIEL: If I had to, I'd put him as a moderate.

BIRDWHISTELL: Moderate, mmhumm. Did you feel that he was more of a pragmatist or an idealist in coming to decisions in the Senate?

DANIEL: Well, he was very practical. And he would have his ideals about subjects, but I think he was a very practical man, especially in his leadership role.

BIRDWHISTELL: Did you discuss with Senator Clements your decision to leave the Senate and run for governor here in Texas?

DANIEL: Yes, I'm sure I did. I'm sure I did. He'd been governor of Kentucky before he came to the Senate, hadn't he?

BIRDWHISTELL: Right. I was wondering if he tried to discourage you from leaving, to stay in the Senate, or anything along those lines.

DANIEL: Well, as I remember it I think he and Senator Johnson both thought I was making a mistake. I think that--I'm not positive about Senator Clements, but I think that he--and I know Senator Johnson thought it was a mistake, that I shouldn't do it. And I think Senator Clements probably had to admit that he enjoyed being 00:32:00governor. And most of the Senators who had been governor, that was the attitude of most of them. However, I think that-- ----------(??) when I have my mind made up, you know, that [it's] no use belaboring it.

BIRDWHISTELL: Did Clements ever discuss with you his re-election campaign that was coming up in 1956 also? Did he seem particularly concerned about it at the time, or did you get that impression at all?

DANIEL: No, I really didn't. I didn't really get much--you see, I was running for governor in '56, and he was running for Senate. Is that right?

BIRDWHISTELL: Running for re-election, right

DANIEL: For re-election. And who ran against him?

BIRDWHISTELL: Thruston Morton, who had been with the state department as a congressional liaison.

DANIEL: Who ran on the Democratic side?

BIRDWHISTELL: Okay then, it was--in the primary?

DANIEL: Yeah, primary.

BIRDWHISTELL: Oh, it was Joe Bates.

DANIEL: No, I don't remember any discussion of his own campaign.

BIRDWHISTELL: And of course, I guess, being busy here in Texas with your own campaign, you didn't keep up with his campaign that year to a great extent.

DANIEL: Not too much. To tell you the honest truth about it, I have forgotten the outcome of the campaign.

BIRDWHISTELL: Well, he lost in 1956.

DANIEL: Is that when Morton went to the Senate?

BIRDWHISTELL: Right, that's when he lost.

DANIEL: I hadn't realized that that's the year that he lost, but looking back I guess you're right.

BIRDWHISTELL: Following his defeat in 1957, then, Johnson being Clements' director of the Senate Campaign Committee, some have reported that Clements, in his new position, was in essence still functioning as Johnson's Whip in the Senate. From your vantage point here in Texas at the time--I know you were out of the Senate, but--did you get that impression from people you knew in the Senate that in fact Clements was still Johnson's right-hand man, so to speak, in the Senate?

DANIEL: No, I didn't get any impression--I don't believe I got any impression of that kind. I was away from it then, and I know they were very close--very close, still.

BIRDWHISTELL: Mmhmm. Well, then, in 1959-1960 Clements worked for Johnson's campaign for the Presidential nomination. Did he contact you and talk with you in this regard about this campaign?

DANIEL: Yes, yes, I was chairman--well, let's see, we elected Johnson chairman of the delegation from Texas, and ----------(??) was vice-chairman, and I was governor and actually served as chairman of our delegation because Johnson was campaigning most of the time out at Los Angeles. But I worked with Senator Clements in that campaign.

BIRDWHISTELL: What was his role in the campaign? Do you recall what--did he have any specific areas that he was primarily concerned with?

DANIEL: Well, I don't know. I was working Texas, and I know he was working Kentucky, and some of those other states, probably working through senators and other friends of his. But he was high in the councils of the Johnson campaign.

BIRDWHISTELL: Of course it was during that campaign that Clements's legal difficulties with the IRS became public. I was wondering if you knew the impact on the campaign of this disclosure and what Johnson's reaction 00:37:00was to that. No, I really don't.

BIRDWHISTELL: And then of course after Johnson became President, from your observation, how close was Clements to President Johnson in the Johnson administration?

DANIEL: Now, that's something that I cannot tell you. I didn't see Senator Clements much from after the time Johnson became President. I went out as governor in '63 and then went to Washington to work for Johnson as Director of the Office of Emergency Preparedness and his liaison with the governors, worked there the last eighteen months of 00:38:00his term. And that's about all the experience I had with Johnson while he was President and didn't have much contact with Senator Clements during that time or at any time after Johnson was President, or Vice-President, as far as that goes.

BIRDWHISTELL: So at least from where you stood, you didn't see Clements as a close advisor in the administration from your vantage point.

DANIEL: No, no, but I wouldn't have done--from my vantage point I wouldn't have had occasion to know about what position and how close they were, etc.

BIRDWHISTELL: Going back to the years the two of you served 00:39:00in the Senate together for just a moment, someone said that Clements didn't socialize in Washington as much as other Senators and going the party circuit, so to speak. Was that your impression at the time, or did you even think of that in that vein?

DANIEL: No, I never did think of that in that vein. I didn't follow the party circuit myself too much, but he was at places where Senators were supposed to be--these, you know, meetings that would be held in Washington of various trade groups and all. I think he--and American Legion and other groups would put on big parties. 00:40:00I've seen him--I remember seeing him at some of them.

BIRDWHISTELL: That's all the prepared questions I have. Is there anything that we haven't discussed that you think would add insight into a study of Senator Clements or any anecdotes that you'd like to share?

DANIEL: Well, not anything especially, except that I can't express too much the friendly disposition that Senator Clements showed to me as a fresh?man Senator and to others who were members of the Senate, and he was always hail-fellow-well?met, usually. I say usually, because sometimes he could 00:41:00be, if he was, you know, a debater in an argument where he had a pretty strong feeling, well, he would express himself very forcefully. But generally he was friendly with the Democratic members of the Senate especially, and also with Republican members of the Senate I think he was highly respected by the Republican members of the Senate, as highly as, you know, any leader on the other side of the aisle can be. But he had mutual respect for people with whom he disagreed; for instance, he and Johnson both I think had a high respect for Bob [Senator Robert A.] Taft, who was Senate Majority Leader in '53 when I went there. I don't think he had 00:42:00as much respect for [Senator William F.] Knowland, at least Knowland was not as easy for Senator Clements to get along with. But the respect was there. The only thing is that they would get into more arguments with Senator Knowland, and Senator Knowland would show his temper 00:43:00at times when he was leader for the Republicans more than Taft.

[End of Side 1]

DANIEL: And I just feel that Senator Clements had such a close relationship personally through his friendly disposition and his interest in his fellow Senators, especially on the Democratic side, that that made him an effective leader. And it was a real pleasure to be with him and to serve with him.

BIRDWHISTELL: With your permission I would like to ask you a couple of questions about Fred Vinson, who served on the court. Would that be possible at this time?

DANIEL: Sure.

BIRDWHISTELL: In bringing the cases of--the Sledd v. Painter case before the Supreme Court--and of course Fred Vinson was a Kentuckian, and we're 00:44:00doing some work on him, too--what was your evaluation and impression at the time of Chief Justice Vinson concerning that case?

DANIEL: Well, I don't know how to answer that to you. There was another case that made me feel that Vinson had some political leanings still in his mind in the Tidelands case, which was argued the day after, I believe, or right in there about the same time, because in that Texas, you know, came into the Union by a so-called treaty, an annexation agreement between two independent countries at 00:45:00the time, and Vinson--his hero was Sam Houston. He'd always thought a lot of him and said so from the bench or in public speeches, and from the bench he made such arguments in favor of Texas that I just--thought that we had just four--just seven judges sitting in--I felt like we had him, and that would make four for Texas, three for the federal government. I felt after the argument that we had that case won, and so did the government. The Solicitor-General felt that he lost the case because Vinson argued with him so much about Texas being different from California, who had been up, and Louisiana was up the same--state was up the same day, and he 00:46:00just made great argument for Texas, and I remember Senator Clinton Anderson went in, was waiting to go in to see Justice Vinson after the argument. He came out and told me that night that the Chief Justice was really high in his praise of our Texas argument--said, I believe you--sounds like you did well, and Anderson was against us. Anderson had felt the other way about it. But President Truman was the one that appointed Fred Vinson, and I can't help but believe that Truman's ideas about the subject ended up prevailing over the ideas 00:47:00of Fred Vinson as of the time those arguments were made. That maybe wrong, to say that. But on the Sweat Case, I didn't get any indication from him in the arguments that his ----------(??) might be leaning.

BIRDWHISTELL: Do you think that if Fred Vinson had lived-?this is one of those iffy questions of history that historians continue to ask--if Fred Vinson had lived and remained Chief Justice, would the Brown decision have come the way it did as soon as it did? Or--yeah.

DANIEL: Oh, I don't know; that's a hard question to--probably not. 00:48:00At least the court was not ready for it at that time. At the time the Sweat case was argued, they had plenty of chance to go all the way, then. But I guess the Court either was not ready or they did not feel that the country was ready, the people were ready to go all the way. And Vinson might have had more caution about it than Warren had.

BIRDWHISTELL: More a sense of the politics of the thing, I suppose.

DANIEL: And the possibility, you know, of--that's just hard to figure. Might have been the same thing. After a few years passed, you know. They first let the states get used to the fact that 00:49:00there had to be integration at the graduate level. That was opening the door. After they got used to that, then it was easier to go on to the Brown decision. And probably it would have been easy for Vinson to do it.

BIRDWHISTELL: Well, I appreciate you taking the time to talk about your recollections of Senator Clements and also the added [part] on Vinson that I've thrown in on you unexpectedly, and I appreciate it very much.

DANIEL: Yes, I hope I haven't been unfair on what I said about Justice Vinson, but I just had an idea that he was influenced by President Truman's thinking on big matters, such as Tidelands. I had that feeling after, you know, hearing him argue so much 00:50:00for us that we ended up losing his vote and losing the case by one vote. Made me wonder about it.

BIRDWHISTELL: I guess you have to.

DANIEL: You know, President Truman felt that issue strongly, having vetoed the Tidelands bill twice. He felt it strongly, and he, I suppose, felt--although he talked the other way when he was campaigning here ------------(??) one year he made some statements about Texas [being]different from California at somebody's suggestion--but I think President Truman really had his heart in the 00:51:00federal government owning the Tidelands. Furthermore, he by proclamation had extended out to the edge of the continental shelf the jurisdiction of the United States, and I think he was pretty proud of that. And he wanted to keep federal control of those lands, sincerely wanted to--you never know.

BIRDWHISTELL: Yeah. I guess that would have been consistent with his other views on the federal government influencing the country--seizure of plants and strike situations and strong central government.

DANIEL: Yes. Mmhmm.

BIRDWHISTELL: Well, thank you again.

DANIEL: Thank you.

[End of interview.]