189

Hugo Black

Currency:USD Category:Collectibles / Autographs Start Price:NA Estimated At:1,000.00 - 1,500.00 USD
Hugo Black

Bidding Over

The auction is over for this lot.
The auctioneer wasn't accepting online bids for this lot.

Contact the auctioneer for information on the auction results.

Search for other lots to bid on...
Auction Date:2016 Dec 07 @ 18:00 (UTC-05:00 : EST/CDT)
Location:236 Commercial St., Suite 100, Boston, Massachusetts, 02109, United States
ALS - Autograph Letter Signed
ANS - Autograph Note Signed
AQS - Autograph Quotation Signed
AMQS - Autograph Musical Quotation Signed
DS - Document Signed
FDC - First Day Cover
Inscribed - “Personalized”
ISP - Inscribed Signed Photograph
LS - Letter Signed
SP - Signed Photograph
TLS - Typed Letter Signed
ALS signed “H. B.,” one page, 4 x 5.5, Supreme Court of the United States Memorandum letterhead, October 14, 1947. Letter to Justice Frank Murphy about Murphy’s concurring opinion in Williams v. North Carolina. In full: “Frank: The CJ & I were just looking at your concurrence in Williams II wherein you stated that while it was unfortunate that they must go to prison, there was no question of civil liberties involved—suppose the Williams’ had been colored? You would have been in an awful fix. Or Indians!” The reverse bears a notation in Black’s hand, “Murphy J,” addressing the memo to Justice Murphy. In fine condition, with a light paperclip impression to the left edge. From the collection of Justice Tom C. Clark.

This rare piece of handwritten correspondence between Supreme Court justices was quite likely penned from the bench during the arguments in Sherrer v. Sherrer and Coe v. Coe, which took place on October 13–14, 1947. These jointly argued cases concerned the validity of out-of-state divorce proceedings, as had Williams v. North Carolina in 1942. In that case the Supreme Court upheld the state’s ruling, finding the plaintiff guilty of bigamous cohabitation. The Williams decision was reaffirmed by the court on appeal in 1945 (“Williams II”), in which Murphy joined the majority opinion and wrote a separate concurrence, stating, ‘Nor are any issues of civil liberties at stake here. It is unfortunate that the petitioners must be imprisoned for acts which they probably committed in reliance upon advice of counsel and without intent to violate the North Carolina statute. But there are many instances of punishment for acts whose criminality was unsuspected at the time of their occurrence.’ Unlike Murphy, Black had dissented, and here seems to poke fun at his friend’s concurrence.