University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Judge Spitzer On Justice

In reference to the article of
Wednesday, April 15 concerning
Judge Spitzer, I would like to relate
a personal experience with the
judge. About six weeks ago four of
us were at Tony's and we recognized
Judge Spitzer leaving so we
said hello. He came over to talk to
us and started the conversation by
telling me to get a haircut.

This is strange in itself because
my hair is really not long at all.
Anyway he said if I ever came to
his court, I'd better have my hair
cut. He said that because of my hair
I would never succeed in business
and that U.S. Steel would probably
not even let me own stock in their
corporation.

The next enlightening bit of
discourse he intellectually expounded
on was that twenty per
cent of the country, the "niggers,"
are in full control of the course of
the nation. Taken back by this I
immediately asked him if a black
would have a fair trial in his court.
He replied, "A nigger has a better
chance in my court than anyone
else in Virginia. If one of them
comes in for stealing chickens I just
let them go because that's all they
know."

He told us a few other amazing
things along the same vein but I
would have trouble quoting them.
However, I was struck hard by one
of the last things he said to us:
"There is only one thing worse than
a nigger and that's long hair."

My reason for writing this is just
to inform the University community
of what we have to put up
with as far as the local court is
concerned. This man can actually
have you locked up for a long time.
One more thing - if you're black
and have long hair, punt the trial.

Your editorial of 15 April
"Justice: American Style" written
by Fred T. Heblich, the Managing
Editor, was a disgrace. You say
"The Chicago Seven and Julius
Hoffman seem a long way off."
Yes, they do. And we should be
thankful that they not only seem a
long way off but indeed are a long
way off.

The editorial stated that Judge
Alan Spitzer was a man "of whom
we have heard nothing good...he
discriminates against young people
in general...something sinister about
his legal philosophy if he has any."
May I say that Judge Alan Spitzer is
a man of whom I have heard
nothing ill. I have appeared before
him and can say unequivocally that
he did not discriminate against
anyone while I was in his court.
Were this paper worth the effort it
would, I'm sure, qualify for a be
suit.

It is impossible for me to discern
what the actual circumstances of
Mr. Beyer's arrest were; even if I
knew all the facts, it is not my
position to pass judgment. However,
if The Cavalier Daily felt
obliged to pick up the torch of
student liberty it should have
placed the criticism where it belongs.
It is up to Judge Spitzer to
pass judgment on cases brought
before him. It is up to the
Charlottesville Police force to bring
the cases before him.

If The Cavalier Daily must
criticize, it should criticize the
Police, in this case Officer W.W.
Duff, for not enforcing the law
more equitably; certainly the police
should arrest the students drinking
in public. Why not say so? Is the
Cavalier Daily afraid to antagonize
a largely alcoholic student body?
Wouldn't the request for less
discrimination by the Police force
bring howls of protest from the
student body?

It is simply not good journalism
to cast aspersions on the character
of a judge simply because one does
not agree with his decisions. That's
what we once called "character
assassination" and we accused fascists
of it. And it was once
considered to be intolerable in a
free democratic country.

Judge Spitzer may be commended
for enforcing the spirit of
the law. Too many lawyers today,
and indeed also Judges, lean over
backward to enforce only the letter
of the law. Lawyers are making
their reputations on their ability to
stretch the law, and Judges are
making their reputations on their
liberal interpretation of the law,
both seemingly having no regard for
the intent of the law.

The law was intended to prevent
people from drinking in public and
punish those that do. Judge Spitzer
was doing the best he could to
enforce the spirit of the law. Let us
not hear any more about allusions
to the Chicago Seven and the
mockery of justice.

The temptation is irresistible!
How seldom does one manage to
obtain cogent and reasoned criticism
on one's thoughts, especially
by such an august personage as
Tom Gardner! In Thursday's paper,
however, T.G. has graciously vouchsafed
to comment in advance, thus
saving me hours of agony awaiting
the Word:

"To the idiot, who I'm sure is
going to write a letter saying..."

I am therefore free to proceed in
confidence to say that T.G. has
shown his S.A. mentality very well
in the second paragraph of his
letter. "Personally I would not be
too upset if they did not catch the
person responsible [for arson in the
Charlottesville draft board last
September]..." How many others
are there in this University so
callous to the blatant risk to human
life that they could make such a
comment? Who else but Gardner
could feel that a fire which, in that
section of Charlottesville, might
well have killed a hundred people
had it not been detected almost
immediately is not too upsetting?

I think that it is quite apparent
why Mr. Gardner would be unwilling
to talk to any F.B.I. agent. If
these are his feelings then it might
not be necessary to "twist [his
statements] into unrecognizable
form for use on the witness
stand(!)." For those of the University
community not consumed with
such blind hatred or suffering from
such blatant paranoia, I should
suggest that there is little danger in
talking to either Mr. McCarthy or
to Mr. Washburg.