◆ SpookStack

ao il . an er 2 Mr. Sourwine. There have been decisions to the contrary’. in the Supreme Court of the United States, have there not? : Mr. Mikva. Yes. And then there has been a later case in the Federal courts in which the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari, as late as 1933, Southern Pacific Company .v. Kiinge, 65 F, 2d 85, again in which the judge was held to have ; abused his discretion in refusing to grant a new trial on the pasis of Jurors! affidavits. . Me, Sourwine. Now, returning to the question of the supervision that you gave the project in Wichita, was it part of your job to see that proper consent was obtained from counsel and other interested persons? | Mr, Mikva, It was my job to do what Judge Hill desired down there, Tam sure that had he sought to go ahead in any case without obtaining. the lawyers! consent, I would have been troubled. The fact is, that situation never arose. Mr, Sourwine, Now, was any discussion ever had with you about the ‘question of whether it would be. desirable to consult the United States Abt vorney with respect to any cases in which the Government was not a party? Mr. Mikva. No, sir, at no time. Mr. Sourwinc. The thougnt never entered? Mx, Mikva. I do not know that the thought aid or did not enter, but I think that the thought and the thinicing was, and still is, that this was the judicioryts problem, and that theiz